By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
The citizens of San Francisco will be voting on a proposition that seeks to ban circumcision in that city. Though I am strongly opposed to the proposition, if it passes, some good may come of it.
Let me explain. I am a passionate advocate of Jewish ritual known as the brit (often pronounced bris) -- the ritual circumcision of 8-day-old Jewish boys. I am even an advocate of circumcision generally. I was recently in Africa -- in Zimbabwe and Zambia -- where I delivered mosquito nets and seeds to the poorest of Africa's poor. I saw giant billboards there, as well as in neighboring Botswana, exhorting men to get circumcised. The World Health Organization estimates that male circumcision reduces the rate of heterosexually transmitted AIDS by about 60 percent.
As regards Jewish ritual circumcision, I can only say that I cried like a baby at the brit of my two sons. All I could think of was that, like generations of Jews who came before me, I had been given the gift of transmitting an unbroken chain of Judaism that dates back to Abraham, 3,600 years ago.
I find the arguments of those who campaign against the brit either specious or ludicrous. The notion that some terrible, lasting pain is inflicted on the baby is simply over the top. The average time the baby cries is probably well under the time it cries -- and far less frantic -- when tired or desiring milk. I fully understand the conflicted feelings of the mother, and I see no reason for her to be present when the actual cutting of the foreskin takes place.
Does the baby experience pain and discomfort afterward? Yes. But it is temporary, and the baby heals quickly.
The advantages wildly outweigh the momentary pain. The brit uniquely strengthens a Jew's religious identification, and the ceremony instills in the family and the community a profound identification with the nearly four millennia of the Jews' world-changing history.
As for the argument that the foreskin is important, I can only say that in my most self-pitying moments I cannot recall lamenting not having my foreskin. As I have told anti-circumcision activists on my radio show, you have to be pretty bored with life to be preoccupied with not having foreskin.
One might add that the same people who are profoundly upset over the removal of foreskin rarely have a problem with the removal of a living human fetus. San Francisco considers protecting the human fetus religious fanaticism, but it is seriously considering protecting a newborn's foreskin.
So, then, given my profound support for circumcision, what good could possibly come from San Francisco passing a ban on it?
If the most left-wing major city in America starts arresting Jews who have their children circumcised there, some American Jews might awaken to the threat to Jews posed by the left. Obviously, San Francisco's already existing bans on toys in Happy Meals, on soda in city-owned places and on plastic bags, and the city's proposed ban on the sale of pets, even goldfish, have not moved many Jews (or non-Jews) to begin wondering whether left-wing governance is dangerous. But perhaps a ban on circumcision will.
Of course, not everyone who is on the left -- and certainly not the traditional liberal -- is an enemy of the Jews. But, aside from Islamists, virtually all the enemies of the Jews are on the left.
The worldwide campaign to delegitimize Israel (i.e., to pave the way for moral acceptance of Israel's destruction) is virtually all on the left. Universities in America and elsewhere in the Western world, as well as the mainstream news media outlets around the globe, are all dominated by the left. They drum into their students', readers', listeners' and viewers' minds that Israel is one of the worst societies on earth.
The anti-Israel propaganda on the left is so great and so effective that according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, "Many of the youths who survived the (Norway) massacre said they thought the killer, dressed as a police officer, was simulating Israeli crimes against Palestinians in the occupied territories."
Yet, most American Jews still walk around thinking that Christians and conservatives are their enemies when, in fact, they are the best friends Jews have in the world today. From the present conservative Canadian government, which is probably the most vocal pro-Israel country in the world today, to every major conservative talk-show host in America (including the fiercely pro-Jewish and pro-Israel Glenn Beck, who has been libeled as an anti-Semite), to the leader of Holland's Party for Freedom and member of the Dutch parliament, Geert Wilders (one of the most eloquent pro-Israel voices in Europe today), to The Wall Street Journal's editorial page -- the right is where the Jews' friends are.
What will it take for this generation of Jews on the left to realize what Arthur Koestler, perhaps the most prominent Jewish leftist of a previous generation, came to realize: namely, that leftism is "the god that failed"? Will it take a San Francisco ban on the oldest practice of the Jewish people? The City of Berkeley declaring Marines "unwelcome intruders"? PETA arguing that there is no moral difference between barbecuing chickens and cremating Jews? The ostracizing of the Jewish state from the world community by institutions dominated by the left?
Whatever it takes, the sooner the better.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Norweigen Crime and Punishment
By Debra J. Saunders
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
In 2007, Norwegian Justice Minister Knut Storberget proposed extending Norway's absolute maximum criminal sentence of 21 years to 30 years for genocide, crimes against humanity and terrorism. That proposal didn't go anywhere. The maximum criminal sentence in Norway is 21 years.
Now 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik stands accused of killing 76 individuals, many of them teenagers, in a vicious rampage that began with a bombing in Oslo Friday. If convicted, he can expect to be a free man in his 50s.
On Monday, Breivik pleaded not guilty. He also told the court that he carried out Friday's attacks to "save" Norway. If he is convicted and still wants to "save" Norway and is deemed at "high-risk" of re-offending, authorities could add five years to his sentence. Or they could parole him when he becomes eligible in 10 years. If Breivik gets the 21-year maximum, he will end up serving about 101 days per victim.
Norway is an idyllic country. Norwegians know best what works for them. It will be interesting to see whether Norwegians want to keep the 21-year prison-term cap after Breivik uses his trial as a megaphone to shout out the anti-multiculturalism, anti-Muslim and anti-Marxist message of his 1,500-page manifesto.
There is a lesson for Americans in this tale. Politicians in some states, including California, are pushing to end their respective states' death penalties. There are consequences.
Our "betters" in Europe got rid of capital punishment decades ago. Next, western European leaders went after life without parole. As Eurocrats focused on the redemption of offenders, they seemed to forget their obligation to protect the innocent and serve as a voice for silenced victims.
Hoover Institution legal fellow Abraham D. Sofaer sees the 21-year cap as "absurdly inadequate" for this type of heinous crime. "I'm sure it's well-intentioned. Maybe it works in most cases," he added. "But then you get these cases, where one would think almost anyone would agree that 21 years is an insult."
This wouldn't be the first time a modern terrorist won short time for a long list of victims on European soil. In 2001, three Scottish judges found former Libya intelligence operative Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi guilty in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed all 270 aboard. Scotland's life sentence made him eligible for parole in 27 years.
But after eight years, Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill granted Megrahi "compassionate" release on the grounds the Libyan had terminal cancer and was not expected to live more than three months. Almost two years later, Megrahi is alive and living large in Libya -- having served mere weeks per victim.
When a country's justice system dispenses with the death penalty and then life sentences, it has no mechanism to redress evil. Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg actually used the word "evil" at a heartbreaking memorial service. Stoltenberg pledged that his country would respond to the evil with "more democracy, more openness and more humanity, but never naivete." It's clear where he should start: Eliminate the 21-year maximum sentence.
In his manifesto, Breivik wrote, "Once you decide to strike, it is better to kill too many than not enough, or you risk reducing the desired ideological impact of the strike." Oslo police say that when they confronted him, he laid down his weapons and surrendered without a fight.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
In 2007, Norwegian Justice Minister Knut Storberget proposed extending Norway's absolute maximum criminal sentence of 21 years to 30 years for genocide, crimes against humanity and terrorism. That proposal didn't go anywhere. The maximum criminal sentence in Norway is 21 years.
Now 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik stands accused of killing 76 individuals, many of them teenagers, in a vicious rampage that began with a bombing in Oslo Friday. If convicted, he can expect to be a free man in his 50s.
On Monday, Breivik pleaded not guilty. He also told the court that he carried out Friday's attacks to "save" Norway. If he is convicted and still wants to "save" Norway and is deemed at "high-risk" of re-offending, authorities could add five years to his sentence. Or they could parole him when he becomes eligible in 10 years. If Breivik gets the 21-year maximum, he will end up serving about 101 days per victim.
Norway is an idyllic country. Norwegians know best what works for them. It will be interesting to see whether Norwegians want to keep the 21-year prison-term cap after Breivik uses his trial as a megaphone to shout out the anti-multiculturalism, anti-Muslim and anti-Marxist message of his 1,500-page manifesto.
There is a lesson for Americans in this tale. Politicians in some states, including California, are pushing to end their respective states' death penalties. There are consequences.
Our "betters" in Europe got rid of capital punishment decades ago. Next, western European leaders went after life without parole. As Eurocrats focused on the redemption of offenders, they seemed to forget their obligation to protect the innocent and serve as a voice for silenced victims.
Hoover Institution legal fellow Abraham D. Sofaer sees the 21-year cap as "absurdly inadequate" for this type of heinous crime. "I'm sure it's well-intentioned. Maybe it works in most cases," he added. "But then you get these cases, where one would think almost anyone would agree that 21 years is an insult."
This wouldn't be the first time a modern terrorist won short time for a long list of victims on European soil. In 2001, three Scottish judges found former Libya intelligence operative Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi guilty in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed all 270 aboard. Scotland's life sentence made him eligible for parole in 27 years.
But after eight years, Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill granted Megrahi "compassionate" release on the grounds the Libyan had terminal cancer and was not expected to live more than three months. Almost two years later, Megrahi is alive and living large in Libya -- having served mere weeks per victim.
When a country's justice system dispenses with the death penalty and then life sentences, it has no mechanism to redress evil. Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg actually used the word "evil" at a heartbreaking memorial service. Stoltenberg pledged that his country would respond to the evil with "more democracy, more openness and more humanity, but never naivete." It's clear where he should start: Eliminate the 21-year maximum sentence.
In his manifesto, Breivik wrote, "Once you decide to strike, it is better to kill too many than not enough, or you risk reducing the desired ideological impact of the strike." Oslo police say that when they confronted him, he laid down his weapons and surrendered without a fight.
Scandals in the Classroom
By Phyllis Schlafly
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
A national scandal hit the news when Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal released a 413-page report describing how hundreds of Atlanta public school teachers and principals had been cheating during the past 10 years on standardized tests in order to falsely report that their schools were doing a good job and the kids were improving.
A total of 178 teachers and principals (38 were principals), 82 of whom have already confessed, had fraudulently raised test scores so their schools would meet test targets set by the district and thereby qualify for federal funds.
The truth came out after a 10-month inquiry by 60 investigators conducting 2,100 interviews. The investigation showed that principals and teachers in 56 schools had been cheating since 2001 by various methods, such as erasing wrong answers on tests and inserting correct answers.
The high scores of Atlanta schoolchildren had enabled Superintendent Beverly L. Hall to collect $600,000 in performance bonuses over 10 years to supplement her $400,000 annual salary. Two national organizations honored her with the title of "superintendent of the year."
According to the report, Hall and her top staff "created a culture of fear, intimidation and retaliation," concealed by "a conspiracy of silence and deniability," that allowed "cheating -- at all levels -- to go unchecked for years." Those who dared to report concerns about cheating "were held in contempt and punished," sometimes by termination.
Hall's message was to get the scores up by any means necessary, so teachers and principals were afraid of falling under her rhetorical lash and being sanctioned for failing to achieve "required results." Her own words were: "No exceptions and no excuses."
Somehow, the Atlanta scandal didn't make it onto the agenda of the annual convention of the National Education Association (NEA), held in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend. The representatives of the 3.2 million NEA members were too busy passing their usual long list of anti-parent, pro-homosexual, pro-feminist and left-wing resolutions.
The NEA adopted Standing Rule Amendment 1 to order all future NEA materials to replace references to K-12 with Pre-K-12. That's a clear message that the NEA sees its future in lining up more union members by expanding the role of public schools to get 3- and 4-year-old children.
Resolution B-1 repeats the demand the NEA has made for several years for "early childhood education programs in the public schools for children from birth through age 8," in addition to "compulsory attendance" in kindergarten. This resolution also insists that Pre-K programs have "diversity-based curricula" and "bias-free screening devices."
It must have been difficult for the Resolutions Committee to add any new pro-homosexual resolutions to the 20 passed last year, but it did. The NEA voted to "publish Articles to celebrate the contributions of GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) teachers and GLBT friends of education."
Feminist resolutions passed by the NEA include endorsement of the Equal Rights Amendment, abortion, family planning clinics in public schools, hiring on the basis of "comparable worth" instead of "market value" and the use of so-called non-sexist language.
The NEA adopted Resolution B-16 to urge Hispanics to be involved in "lobbying efforts for federal programs." Among those political goals, of course, is support of "passage of the Dream Act that provides a pathway for undocumented college students to obtain a Green Card and eventual citizenship," endorsed in New Business Item 11.
Among the other political resolutions adopted by the NEA Convention were endorsements of single-payer (government) health care, reparations for descendants of slaves, statehood for the District of Columbia, compliance with unratified United Nations treaties, opposition to English as our official language, opposition to a moment of silence in schools and strict regulation of guns. NEA Resolution H-1 urges members "to become politically involved" in the NEA's political action committees, and we all know that means electing Democratic candidates.
The NEA did pass a few resolutions about education, but none about doing a better job of teaching children to read. The NEA supports public school courses in multiculturalism, global education, environmental education, bilingual education, AIDS education and self-esteem, but opposes voucher plans, tuition tax credits, parental-option plans and homeschooling.
The most exciting event during the NEA Convention was the presentation of the Friend of Education Award to the "Wisconsin 14," the state legislators who fled their state rather than vote for legislation that would slightly modify collective bargaining rights for state employees. The legislators hid out in Illinois for three weeks.
Going on record as the first union to endorse Barack Obama for a second term, NEA delegates voted overwhelmingly to support him in the 2012 presidential election, a year earlier than the NEA usually makes its endorsements. No surprise there.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
A national scandal hit the news when Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal released a 413-page report describing how hundreds of Atlanta public school teachers and principals had been cheating during the past 10 years on standardized tests in order to falsely report that their schools were doing a good job and the kids were improving.
A total of 178 teachers and principals (38 were principals), 82 of whom have already confessed, had fraudulently raised test scores so their schools would meet test targets set by the district and thereby qualify for federal funds.
The truth came out after a 10-month inquiry by 60 investigators conducting 2,100 interviews. The investigation showed that principals and teachers in 56 schools had been cheating since 2001 by various methods, such as erasing wrong answers on tests and inserting correct answers.
The high scores of Atlanta schoolchildren had enabled Superintendent Beverly L. Hall to collect $600,000 in performance bonuses over 10 years to supplement her $400,000 annual salary. Two national organizations honored her with the title of "superintendent of the year."
According to the report, Hall and her top staff "created a culture of fear, intimidation and retaliation," concealed by "a conspiracy of silence and deniability," that allowed "cheating -- at all levels -- to go unchecked for years." Those who dared to report concerns about cheating "were held in contempt and punished," sometimes by termination.
Hall's message was to get the scores up by any means necessary, so teachers and principals were afraid of falling under her rhetorical lash and being sanctioned for failing to achieve "required results." Her own words were: "No exceptions and no excuses."
Somehow, the Atlanta scandal didn't make it onto the agenda of the annual convention of the National Education Association (NEA), held in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend. The representatives of the 3.2 million NEA members were too busy passing their usual long list of anti-parent, pro-homosexual, pro-feminist and left-wing resolutions.
The NEA adopted Standing Rule Amendment 1 to order all future NEA materials to replace references to K-12 with Pre-K-12. That's a clear message that the NEA sees its future in lining up more union members by expanding the role of public schools to get 3- and 4-year-old children.
Resolution B-1 repeats the demand the NEA has made for several years for "early childhood education programs in the public schools for children from birth through age 8," in addition to "compulsory attendance" in kindergarten. This resolution also insists that Pre-K programs have "diversity-based curricula" and "bias-free screening devices."
It must have been difficult for the Resolutions Committee to add any new pro-homosexual resolutions to the 20 passed last year, but it did. The NEA voted to "publish Articles to celebrate the contributions of GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) teachers and GLBT friends of education."
Feminist resolutions passed by the NEA include endorsement of the Equal Rights Amendment, abortion, family planning clinics in public schools, hiring on the basis of "comparable worth" instead of "market value" and the use of so-called non-sexist language.
The NEA adopted Resolution B-16 to urge Hispanics to be involved in "lobbying efforts for federal programs." Among those political goals, of course, is support of "passage of the Dream Act that provides a pathway for undocumented college students to obtain a Green Card and eventual citizenship," endorsed in New Business Item 11.
Among the other political resolutions adopted by the NEA Convention were endorsements of single-payer (government) health care, reparations for descendants of slaves, statehood for the District of Columbia, compliance with unratified United Nations treaties, opposition to English as our official language, opposition to a moment of silence in schools and strict regulation of guns. NEA Resolution H-1 urges members "to become politically involved" in the NEA's political action committees, and we all know that means electing Democratic candidates.
The NEA did pass a few resolutions about education, but none about doing a better job of teaching children to read. The NEA supports public school courses in multiculturalism, global education, environmental education, bilingual education, AIDS education and self-esteem, but opposes voucher plans, tuition tax credits, parental-option plans and homeschooling.
The most exciting event during the NEA Convention was the presentation of the Friend of Education Award to the "Wisconsin 14," the state legislators who fled their state rather than vote for legislation that would slightly modify collective bargaining rights for state employees. The legislators hid out in Illinois for three weeks.
Going on record as the first union to endorse Barack Obama for a second term, NEA delegates voted overwhelmingly to support him in the 2012 presidential election, a year earlier than the NEA usually makes its endorsements. No surprise there.
Obama's Intent to Gut the Military
By Lurita Doan
Monday, July 25, 2011
President Obama continues to push the notion that he wants a "balanced approach" to budget cuts, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the only spending cuts he is willing to contemplate are cuts in defense spending. The vast entitlement system that now eats the majority of tax dollars is, by contrast, not only on his list of programs to be sustained, but expanded. Mr. Obama seems determined to protect the welfare state. He lacks the courage and the candor to admit to the unsustainablity of an entitlement system which has pushed the nation to the brink of insolvency as our debts continue to mount. Instead of addressing the source of the spending problems, it is becoming clear that Mr. Obama intends to hollow out the military. What folly!
Only weeks ago, Obama signaled intentions to cut $400 billion from Defense, but key Democrats are already talking about even large cuts of $1 trillion to Defense. Such a move would signal a broad American retreat from the world and erode our national defense for many years to come. Obama's military budget shenanigans are yet another reminder that the key characteristic of Obama’s involvement in any aspect of U.S. life--economics, policies or participation on the world scene—is that Obama's policies have left Americans with a weaker world presence as a result of his involvement.
Military spending is an area which, traditionally, in past years, Dems have loved to cut. Democrat eagerness to cut military spending is the result of a fundamental, ideological difference: the GOP believes the U.S. is served best by a strong military, both at home and abroad, while Dems believe that a more kumbaya, we-are-the-world, approach is the way to best protect America. Obama, who first launched his apologize-to-the-world tour on this premise, has never been a keen supporter of endeavors military. Obama's recent threats, that our veterans might not receive their retirement and disability checks if a debt ceiling-budget compromise is not reached by 2 August, just prove that point.
It seems clear that the $100 billion in defense cuts proposed in the FY2012 budget are merely the tip of the iceberg. Further cuts will likely be proposed because the budget dollars for defense are so big and because cutting in this area will appease at least one faction of the Dems ideological extremist base.
The Gang of Six proposal called for almost trillion dollars ($886 billion) in cuts from defense. Others have proposed that some direct cuts could come from canceling air craft carrier construction (not surprisingly, the Dems have pointed to the USS George H.W. Bush) as one of the possible candidates for cancelation.
Other proposals include the reduction of U.S. troops in Europe and Asia, as well as at home. Others propose to implement cuts to military health care, reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and reduce the military research and development efforts and even revise the military pay and compensation scale.
Certainly, any of these proposals would reduce the amount of military spending, and thus reduce overall federal spending, but we would be weaker as a nation as a result. George Washington said: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite." Obama seeks to render our military neither well-armed nor well-planned which calls into question our nation’s ability to remain a free people for long.
Meanwhile, over at NASA, the U.S. space program has, essentially, been canceled. Instead of pushing the agency to focus on its core mission and core competencies, Obama has allowed NASA to take itself out of the space business, and thus take the country out of space for the next 30 years. NASA's reduction of mission will result in thousands of jobs lost" as contractors for the shuttle program begin to lay off workers."
Worse, to put a man in space, America will now be required to pay Russia for shuttle space. Not too surprisingly, Russia has already stepped forward and declared that the next decade will be "the era of the Soyuz" as Russian space exploration continues.
The next U.S. president will inherit an economic disaster of a country on an epic scale, courtesy of the bungling of Obama, and his team of advisors, whose repeated efforts to stimulate the economy through government subsidies and increased regulation that punishes small business owners, has failed to yield significant growth in the economy or in jobs. The next president, courtesy of Obama's bungling, will also face a monumental, uphill task to restore the superior force and prestige of our military at home and abroad. For that, a new president, who believes in our country and believes in American exceptionalism is mandatory.
November 2012 cannot come soon enough.
Monday, July 25, 2011
President Obama continues to push the notion that he wants a "balanced approach" to budget cuts, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the only spending cuts he is willing to contemplate are cuts in defense spending. The vast entitlement system that now eats the majority of tax dollars is, by contrast, not only on his list of programs to be sustained, but expanded. Mr. Obama seems determined to protect the welfare state. He lacks the courage and the candor to admit to the unsustainablity of an entitlement system which has pushed the nation to the brink of insolvency as our debts continue to mount. Instead of addressing the source of the spending problems, it is becoming clear that Mr. Obama intends to hollow out the military. What folly!
Only weeks ago, Obama signaled intentions to cut $400 billion from Defense, but key Democrats are already talking about even large cuts of $1 trillion to Defense. Such a move would signal a broad American retreat from the world and erode our national defense for many years to come. Obama's military budget shenanigans are yet another reminder that the key characteristic of Obama’s involvement in any aspect of U.S. life--economics, policies or participation on the world scene—is that Obama's policies have left Americans with a weaker world presence as a result of his involvement.
Military spending is an area which, traditionally, in past years, Dems have loved to cut. Democrat eagerness to cut military spending is the result of a fundamental, ideological difference: the GOP believes the U.S. is served best by a strong military, both at home and abroad, while Dems believe that a more kumbaya, we-are-the-world, approach is the way to best protect America. Obama, who first launched his apologize-to-the-world tour on this premise, has never been a keen supporter of endeavors military. Obama's recent threats, that our veterans might not receive their retirement and disability checks if a debt ceiling-budget compromise is not reached by 2 August, just prove that point.
It seems clear that the $100 billion in defense cuts proposed in the FY2012 budget are merely the tip of the iceberg. Further cuts will likely be proposed because the budget dollars for defense are so big and because cutting in this area will appease at least one faction of the Dems ideological extremist base.
The Gang of Six proposal called for almost trillion dollars ($886 billion) in cuts from defense. Others have proposed that some direct cuts could come from canceling air craft carrier construction (not surprisingly, the Dems have pointed to the USS George H.W. Bush) as one of the possible candidates for cancelation.
Other proposals include the reduction of U.S. troops in Europe and Asia, as well as at home. Others propose to implement cuts to military health care, reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and reduce the military research and development efforts and even revise the military pay and compensation scale.
Certainly, any of these proposals would reduce the amount of military spending, and thus reduce overall federal spending, but we would be weaker as a nation as a result. George Washington said: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite." Obama seeks to render our military neither well-armed nor well-planned which calls into question our nation’s ability to remain a free people for long.
Meanwhile, over at NASA, the U.S. space program has, essentially, been canceled. Instead of pushing the agency to focus on its core mission and core competencies, Obama has allowed NASA to take itself out of the space business, and thus take the country out of space for the next 30 years. NASA's reduction of mission will result in thousands of jobs lost" as contractors for the shuttle program begin to lay off workers."
Worse, to put a man in space, America will now be required to pay Russia for shuttle space. Not too surprisingly, Russia has already stepped forward and declared that the next decade will be "the era of the Soyuz" as Russian space exploration continues.
The next U.S. president will inherit an economic disaster of a country on an epic scale, courtesy of the bungling of Obama, and his team of advisors, whose repeated efforts to stimulate the economy through government subsidies and increased regulation that punishes small business owners, has failed to yield significant growth in the economy or in jobs. The next president, courtesy of Obama's bungling, will also face a monumental, uphill task to restore the superior force and prestige of our military at home and abroad. For that, a new president, who believes in our country and believes in American exceptionalism is mandatory.
November 2012 cannot come soon enough.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Obama’s Young Ex-Fans
The 2008 youth vote was huge for Obama. Things may be different in 2012.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Elise Jordan
President Obama’s got problems for 2012. Sure, he just hauled in a record $86 million in cash. But the fundraising success masks a very big issue: Obama has lost the youth vote — he just isn’t trendy any more. Which is good news for Republicans: President Untrendy gives us a better chance to win. As a generation of media-encouraged Obama idealists has turned economic realists, Republicans can appeal to this age bracket to take the prize next year.
Political campaigns have historically discounted the importance of the youth vote — for good reason, generally, as young voters have tended not to show up on Election Day. Obama has changed that dynamic, perhaps permanently. The Millennial generation, meaning 18-to-29-year-olds — whom I wrote about a few weeks back — mattered in the 2008 election because Obama’s campaign recognized and exploited them. His campaign team engaged them through ground-breaking use of social media and grassroots outreach. It worked. Youth voted for Obama by a margin of 2 to 1, and 3 million more new voters visited the polls than in 2004. The Millennials accounted for 18 percent of the vote, and it was the third consecutive presidential election with increased youth turnout.
Young voters in 2008 were attracted to Obama as a symbol — no one knew exactly what he stood for, but voting for him sure did feel good. Nearly three years later, many of them are increasingly disgusted to learn that he apparently doesn’t stand for much. What’s his position again on gay marriage? On Afghanistan? On Iraq? Health care? The skyrocketing debt? They care little about having a symbolic leader when they can’t find jobs. The Hope and Change he promised have long since become a punch line.
When Obama spoke at the University of Maryland on Friday, student Jerome Lincolns explained how his attitude toward the president had shifted since Obama last visited the campus in 2009. “He’s like a new car: First it’s really awesome, and then you realize it’s a lot like the other cars,” Lincolns told USA Today.
Last month, a youth-advocacy group called Generation Opportunity released a bunch of very telling statistics. Headed up by a former Bush-administration official, Paul Conway, the group polled 600 likely voters in the Millennial age group. My key take-away from their findings: It’s the Obama economy, stupid.
Although young voters were embraced by the Obama campaign, they haven’t felt the same love from the Obama administration. Almost three-quarters of those surveyed by Generation Opportunity say the current administration fails to serve their generation. Less than a third approve of the president’s approach to youth unemployment. Over three-quarters have already put off, or expect to put off, a major life change or purchase because of the poor economy. Just under half are waiting to buy a home, and 27 percent are waiting to go back to school. Around one-quarter are delaying starting a family, and 18 percent are holding off on marriage.
Republican insiders I’ve spoken to in recent days almost all seem resigned to an Obama victory. That’s understandable, but not pre-ordained. All you have to do is look at those numbers from Generation Opportunity. The youth are feeling pretty dismal about the direction of Obama’s America. More than half aren’t confident that America will be the global leader in ten years. More important, they overwhelmingly view out-of-control spending and debt as the biggest threat facing America. Almost three-quarters want to see government spending reduced and do not support raising taxes. These positions sound — gasp! — Republican.
So Obama’s problem with this core constituency is an opportunity for the GOP. An opportunity — but not a slam-dunk. The youth voters are overwhelmingly moderate and issues-oriented. However, as Margaret Hoover pointed out in her new book, American Individualism, voting patterns tend to be set after three presidential elections. For about a third of the Millennial generation, this decisive third election will be the 2012 race. It’s going to be a very tough fight. Obama is going to have a record war chest. And Republican strategists are rightly worried about a primary season that could continue into next May, which would leave the eventual nominee weakened. But he or she might be able to find bounce in the younger generation.
I’ll be honest: President Untrendy is still going to seem a lot cooler than any nominee we choose. There’s no point in trying to out-hipster the man (when we went for “energy” last time, we got Sarah Palin). That doesn’t mean we should cede the Millennial battlefield. What it does means is that we must keep the message simple and focused, and we must talk directly to the young voters. We know what they want, and we know Republicans can deliver it better than Democrats. Targeting young professionals and canvassing college students — people among whom the economic anxiety of the past two years is particularly acute, and who face the highest barriers to employment — should be a main focus of the Republican effort. Trendy has never paid the bills, and this time around it might not get that many votes, either.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Elise Jordan
President Obama’s got problems for 2012. Sure, he just hauled in a record $86 million in cash. But the fundraising success masks a very big issue: Obama has lost the youth vote — he just isn’t trendy any more. Which is good news for Republicans: President Untrendy gives us a better chance to win. As a generation of media-encouraged Obama idealists has turned economic realists, Republicans can appeal to this age bracket to take the prize next year.
Political campaigns have historically discounted the importance of the youth vote — for good reason, generally, as young voters have tended not to show up on Election Day. Obama has changed that dynamic, perhaps permanently. The Millennial generation, meaning 18-to-29-year-olds — whom I wrote about a few weeks back — mattered in the 2008 election because Obama’s campaign recognized and exploited them. His campaign team engaged them through ground-breaking use of social media and grassroots outreach. It worked. Youth voted for Obama by a margin of 2 to 1, and 3 million more new voters visited the polls than in 2004. The Millennials accounted for 18 percent of the vote, and it was the third consecutive presidential election with increased youth turnout.
Young voters in 2008 were attracted to Obama as a symbol — no one knew exactly what he stood for, but voting for him sure did feel good. Nearly three years later, many of them are increasingly disgusted to learn that he apparently doesn’t stand for much. What’s his position again on gay marriage? On Afghanistan? On Iraq? Health care? The skyrocketing debt? They care little about having a symbolic leader when they can’t find jobs. The Hope and Change he promised have long since become a punch line.
When Obama spoke at the University of Maryland on Friday, student Jerome Lincolns explained how his attitude toward the president had shifted since Obama last visited the campus in 2009. “He’s like a new car: First it’s really awesome, and then you realize it’s a lot like the other cars,” Lincolns told USA Today.
Last month, a youth-advocacy group called Generation Opportunity released a bunch of very telling statistics. Headed up by a former Bush-administration official, Paul Conway, the group polled 600 likely voters in the Millennial age group. My key take-away from their findings: It’s the Obama economy, stupid.
Although young voters were embraced by the Obama campaign, they haven’t felt the same love from the Obama administration. Almost three-quarters of those surveyed by Generation Opportunity say the current administration fails to serve their generation. Less than a third approve of the president’s approach to youth unemployment. Over three-quarters have already put off, or expect to put off, a major life change or purchase because of the poor economy. Just under half are waiting to buy a home, and 27 percent are waiting to go back to school. Around one-quarter are delaying starting a family, and 18 percent are holding off on marriage.
Republican insiders I’ve spoken to in recent days almost all seem resigned to an Obama victory. That’s understandable, but not pre-ordained. All you have to do is look at those numbers from Generation Opportunity. The youth are feeling pretty dismal about the direction of Obama’s America. More than half aren’t confident that America will be the global leader in ten years. More important, they overwhelmingly view out-of-control spending and debt as the biggest threat facing America. Almost three-quarters want to see government spending reduced and do not support raising taxes. These positions sound — gasp! — Republican.
So Obama’s problem with this core constituency is an opportunity for the GOP. An opportunity — but not a slam-dunk. The youth voters are overwhelmingly moderate and issues-oriented. However, as Margaret Hoover pointed out in her new book, American Individualism, voting patterns tend to be set after three presidential elections. For about a third of the Millennial generation, this decisive third election will be the 2012 race. It’s going to be a very tough fight. Obama is going to have a record war chest. And Republican strategists are rightly worried about a primary season that could continue into next May, which would leave the eventual nominee weakened. But he or she might be able to find bounce in the younger generation.
I’ll be honest: President Untrendy is still going to seem a lot cooler than any nominee we choose. There’s no point in trying to out-hipster the man (when we went for “energy” last time, we got Sarah Palin). That doesn’t mean we should cede the Millennial battlefield. What it does means is that we must keep the message simple and focused, and we must talk directly to the young voters. We know what they want, and we know Republicans can deliver it better than Democrats. Targeting young professionals and canvassing college students — people among whom the economic anxiety of the past two years is particularly acute, and who face the highest barriers to employment — should be a main focus of the Republican effort. Trendy has never paid the bills, and this time around it might not get that many votes, either.
To Get a Mandate, GOP Must Win Another Election
By Michael Barone
Monday, July 25, 2011
Those who consider themselves constitutional conservatives should take care to consider not only the powers that the Constitution confers on the different branches of government and reserves to the states and the people, but also the schedule that the Constitution sets up for sharp changes and reversals of public policy.
The entire House of Representatives is elected every two years. The voters in 2010, with unusual clarity, elected a House determined to reverse the Obama Democrats' vast increase in the size and scope of government.
But determination is not enough. Barack Obama, elected in 2008, remains in office, armed with a veto. The friendly mainstream media permit him to use euphemisms to insist on tax increases that were roundly rejected by the voters in 2010.
And the Senate, two-thirds of which was elected in the Democratic years of 2006 and 2008, retains a Democratic majority that, though unable to pass its own budget, can frustrate House Republicans' attempts to deliver on their more recent mandate.
The lesson is that you have to win at least two elections in a row to make the kind of policy changes that the Obama Democrats made in 2009 and 2010 and that House Republicans want to make now.
The good news for Republicans is that there has been a convergence of voting in congressional and presidential elections.
Starting in the 1950s, accelerating in the '60s and '70s, and continuing in the '80s, many Americans split their tickets, often electing Republican presidents but electing Democratic House majorities for 40 years.
In the middle 1990s, that changed. The Democratic percentage of the vote for president and for the House of Representatives have differed by no more than 1 percent starting in 1996.
In addition, the percentages for the two parties in the popular vote for the House in the last three off-year elections have been almost exactly the same as the percentages for the parties in the vote for president two years later.
In 1998, the popular vote for the House was 49 percent to 48 percent Republican. In 2000, the popular vote for president was 48 percent to 48 percent Democratic.
In 2002, the popular vote for the House was 51 percent to 46 percent Republican. In 2004, the popular vote for president was 51 percent to 48 percent Republican.
In 2006, the popular vote for the House was 53 percent to 45 percent Democratic. In 2008, the popular vote for president was 53 percent to 46 percent Democratic.
Obviously, this is not good news for Barack Obama, since the popular vote for the House in 2010 was 52 percent to 45 percent Republican. Translate those numbers into electoral votes, and you have something like a 331 to 207 Republican victory.
Now it is possible, even in a period when the congressional and the presidential vote have converged, for a president to improve on his party's off-year performance. Bill Clinton did so in 1996, running 5 percent ahead of his party's House performance two years before, by sharply changing course on public policy.
And it seems that in the negotiations on the debt limit, Obama is trying to depict himself as following a similar course.
He has said he would support billions in spending cuts -- though without providing any specifics. He has said that he would be willing to "look at" means-testing Medicare -- though it's unclear this commitment amounts to anything.
He has encouraged the pliant press to depict Republicans' opposition to "revenues" -- translated into English that means tax increases -- as "intransigence."
But it's Obama who has been intransigent about insisting on tax increases that voters endorsed tepidly at most in 2008 and that they clearly repudiated in 2010.
Obama promised to fundamentally transform America, and he and his party have managed to increase the federal government's share of gross domestic product from 21 percent to 25 percent -- a huge policy change. They are striving now to keep it at that level permanently.
Republicans want to reverse that enormous policy change, and many are ready to denounce any debt limit deal that leaves them short of that goal.
Before doing so, they ought to consult the Constitution. To achieve the changes they want and that voters endorsed in 2010, they need to win again in 2012. The deal that gets them closer to that is what they ought to be seeking now.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Those who consider themselves constitutional conservatives should take care to consider not only the powers that the Constitution confers on the different branches of government and reserves to the states and the people, but also the schedule that the Constitution sets up for sharp changes and reversals of public policy.
The entire House of Representatives is elected every two years. The voters in 2010, with unusual clarity, elected a House determined to reverse the Obama Democrats' vast increase in the size and scope of government.
But determination is not enough. Barack Obama, elected in 2008, remains in office, armed with a veto. The friendly mainstream media permit him to use euphemisms to insist on tax increases that were roundly rejected by the voters in 2010.
And the Senate, two-thirds of which was elected in the Democratic years of 2006 and 2008, retains a Democratic majority that, though unable to pass its own budget, can frustrate House Republicans' attempts to deliver on their more recent mandate.
The lesson is that you have to win at least two elections in a row to make the kind of policy changes that the Obama Democrats made in 2009 and 2010 and that House Republicans want to make now.
The good news for Republicans is that there has been a convergence of voting in congressional and presidential elections.
Starting in the 1950s, accelerating in the '60s and '70s, and continuing in the '80s, many Americans split their tickets, often electing Republican presidents but electing Democratic House majorities for 40 years.
In the middle 1990s, that changed. The Democratic percentage of the vote for president and for the House of Representatives have differed by no more than 1 percent starting in 1996.
In addition, the percentages for the two parties in the popular vote for the House in the last three off-year elections have been almost exactly the same as the percentages for the parties in the vote for president two years later.
In 1998, the popular vote for the House was 49 percent to 48 percent Republican. In 2000, the popular vote for president was 48 percent to 48 percent Democratic.
In 2002, the popular vote for the House was 51 percent to 46 percent Republican. In 2004, the popular vote for president was 51 percent to 48 percent Republican.
In 2006, the popular vote for the House was 53 percent to 45 percent Democratic. In 2008, the popular vote for president was 53 percent to 46 percent Democratic.
Obviously, this is not good news for Barack Obama, since the popular vote for the House in 2010 was 52 percent to 45 percent Republican. Translate those numbers into electoral votes, and you have something like a 331 to 207 Republican victory.
Now it is possible, even in a period when the congressional and the presidential vote have converged, for a president to improve on his party's off-year performance. Bill Clinton did so in 1996, running 5 percent ahead of his party's House performance two years before, by sharply changing course on public policy.
And it seems that in the negotiations on the debt limit, Obama is trying to depict himself as following a similar course.
He has said he would support billions in spending cuts -- though without providing any specifics. He has said that he would be willing to "look at" means-testing Medicare -- though it's unclear this commitment amounts to anything.
He has encouraged the pliant press to depict Republicans' opposition to "revenues" -- translated into English that means tax increases -- as "intransigence."
But it's Obama who has been intransigent about insisting on tax increases that voters endorsed tepidly at most in 2008 and that they clearly repudiated in 2010.
Obama promised to fundamentally transform America, and he and his party have managed to increase the federal government's share of gross domestic product from 21 percent to 25 percent -- a huge policy change. They are striving now to keep it at that level permanently.
Republicans want to reverse that enormous policy change, and many are ready to denounce any debt limit deal that leaves them short of that goal.
Before doing so, they ought to consult the Constitution. To achieve the changes they want and that voters endorsed in 2010, they need to win again in 2012. The deal that gets them closer to that is what they ought to be seeking now.
Is the NCAA Anti-Male?
By Bruce Bialosky
Monday, July 25, 2011
In 1972, Congresswoman Patsy Mink authored an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The amendment, which was passed and signed into law, states that "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..." The law was called Title IX. The question now is whether this admirable idea has evolved into a law that is anti-male, and particularly anti-black male.
Before anyone jumps to conclusions, let me state for the record that I actively support Women’s college sports. Women’s softball is a fabulous and exciting game. Women’s basketball has improved dramatically, and now truly merits the coverage they receive on ESPN. Women’s volleyball, soccer, and several other sports are both well-played and competitive at the major college level. Unfortunately, there’s one thing they all have in common: they are utterly dependent upon Men’s football and basketball programs for their existence.
When Ms. Mink made her proposal, she did not suggest to the NCAA that the burden of funding Women’s sports should be placed on the backs of their male counterparts. But the NCAA saw an easy target in the rapidly-increasing revenues generated by Men’s football and basketball, and they took advantage of it. They started building bigger football stadiums and basketball arenas – every one of which was fitted with high-priced corporate boxes – to rake in more revenue in order to meet the compliance requirements of Title IX.
Instead of funding women’s sports through student fees (or other methods), the NCAA decided that money should come from athletic department budgets. The fact that male football and basketball players were creating the revenue and receiving none of the proceeds was beside the point. To the NCAA, the players were being well remunerated with a free college education, and the revenues they were generating were needed for the other sports. This policy became a shibboleth of the academic elite, and no one dared to challenge the established orthodoxy. After all, remember what happened to Lawrence Summers when he confronted the Women’s rights bloc at Harvard. Why rock the boat when the only ones being taken advantage of were the athletes, who “all” thought that they would eventually hit a big payday in professional sports. The fact that this pie-in-the-sky scenario never happened for most men playing college football or basketball didn’t matter. It covered the behinds of the NCAA.
So you don’t think the policy of using the funds from Men’s football and basketball is anti-male? How about this one – it is downright racist. If you follow college sports, your eyes tell you that an overwhelming percentage of both football and basketball players are Black. That is because at Division I schools 61% of basketball players and 46% of football players are Black. They are too often brought into schools to win games, not to study and graduate. Most of them are offered the pipe dream of becoming a star at their school along with the prospects of a future in the NFL or NBA – and, if they suffer career-ending injuries, well, that’s just part of the chances they take. If they finish four years of college without graduating, well, that’s just too bad. The fact that they skipped classes to do two-a-day workouts was their choice.
Take a look at the other sports. Your eyes will again tell you the rosters of Men’s baseball teams are almost all white and the same goes for lacrosse and hockey. Soccer, wrestling, gymnastics, swimming, tennis, rugby – every one of these sports rides on the back of the black football and basketball players. That is because except for Track the percentage of Black players is below 10%. Except for Women’s basketball (33%), every Woman’s sport fields principally white rosters (again except for Track below 6%). And not one of these teams is financially self-sufficient – they all live or die on whether that 6’ 5” black lineman or 6’8” black power forward signs with the school and performs and packs the stands.
The problem is that the system is falling apart. More and more schools are being charged with NCAA infractions (most indecipherable) while trying to recruit and keep their unpaid money machines. The price of coaches (principally white) and Athletic Directors (principally white) is climbing into the millions while the players who generate the revenues – unlike every other student – are restricted from earning ordinary spending money.
How long can this sexist, racist charade go on? Frankly, it has only lasted this long because it supports the liberal sacred cow of “women’s rights.” Because the NCAA is run by a monolithically left-wing lineup – college administrators – they have been protected against accusations that they are taking advantage of poor black kids. No private business would be able to get away with this scam, and neither should the NCAA.
Major changes have to happen in how these players are recruited, how they’re treated when arriving on campus, and what they receive for playing big-time college sports. They deserve something more than a college degree, too many of which (to be honest) won’t lead to jobs that pay well enough to afford a hip replacement at the age of 50. Everybody is profiting off the skills and sacrifices these players have made – except the athletes that actually create the revenue flow. The system is sick and has to change, or it will eventually suffer a major calamity that forces change upon it.
Monday, July 25, 2011
In 1972, Congresswoman Patsy Mink authored an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The amendment, which was passed and signed into law, states that "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..." The law was called Title IX. The question now is whether this admirable idea has evolved into a law that is anti-male, and particularly anti-black male.
Before anyone jumps to conclusions, let me state for the record that I actively support Women’s college sports. Women’s softball is a fabulous and exciting game. Women’s basketball has improved dramatically, and now truly merits the coverage they receive on ESPN. Women’s volleyball, soccer, and several other sports are both well-played and competitive at the major college level. Unfortunately, there’s one thing they all have in common: they are utterly dependent upon Men’s football and basketball programs for their existence.
When Ms. Mink made her proposal, she did not suggest to the NCAA that the burden of funding Women’s sports should be placed on the backs of their male counterparts. But the NCAA saw an easy target in the rapidly-increasing revenues generated by Men’s football and basketball, and they took advantage of it. They started building bigger football stadiums and basketball arenas – every one of which was fitted with high-priced corporate boxes – to rake in more revenue in order to meet the compliance requirements of Title IX.
Instead of funding women’s sports through student fees (or other methods), the NCAA decided that money should come from athletic department budgets. The fact that male football and basketball players were creating the revenue and receiving none of the proceeds was beside the point. To the NCAA, the players were being well remunerated with a free college education, and the revenues they were generating were needed for the other sports. This policy became a shibboleth of the academic elite, and no one dared to challenge the established orthodoxy. After all, remember what happened to Lawrence Summers when he confronted the Women’s rights bloc at Harvard. Why rock the boat when the only ones being taken advantage of were the athletes, who “all” thought that they would eventually hit a big payday in professional sports. The fact that this pie-in-the-sky scenario never happened for most men playing college football or basketball didn’t matter. It covered the behinds of the NCAA.
So you don’t think the policy of using the funds from Men’s football and basketball is anti-male? How about this one – it is downright racist. If you follow college sports, your eyes tell you that an overwhelming percentage of both football and basketball players are Black. That is because at Division I schools 61% of basketball players and 46% of football players are Black. They are too often brought into schools to win games, not to study and graduate. Most of them are offered the pipe dream of becoming a star at their school along with the prospects of a future in the NFL or NBA – and, if they suffer career-ending injuries, well, that’s just part of the chances they take. If they finish four years of college without graduating, well, that’s just too bad. The fact that they skipped classes to do two-a-day workouts was their choice.
Take a look at the other sports. Your eyes will again tell you the rosters of Men’s baseball teams are almost all white and the same goes for lacrosse and hockey. Soccer, wrestling, gymnastics, swimming, tennis, rugby – every one of these sports rides on the back of the black football and basketball players. That is because except for Track the percentage of Black players is below 10%. Except for Women’s basketball (33%), every Woman’s sport fields principally white rosters (again except for Track below 6%). And not one of these teams is financially self-sufficient – they all live or die on whether that 6’ 5” black lineman or 6’8” black power forward signs with the school and performs and packs the stands.
The problem is that the system is falling apart. More and more schools are being charged with NCAA infractions (most indecipherable) while trying to recruit and keep their unpaid money machines. The price of coaches (principally white) and Athletic Directors (principally white) is climbing into the millions while the players who generate the revenues – unlike every other student – are restricted from earning ordinary spending money.
How long can this sexist, racist charade go on? Frankly, it has only lasted this long because it supports the liberal sacred cow of “women’s rights.” Because the NCAA is run by a monolithically left-wing lineup – college administrators – they have been protected against accusations that they are taking advantage of poor black kids. No private business would be able to get away with this scam, and neither should the NCAA.
Major changes have to happen in how these players are recruited, how they’re treated when arriving on campus, and what they receive for playing big-time college sports. They deserve something more than a college degree, too many of which (to be honest) won’t lead to jobs that pay well enough to afford a hip replacement at the age of 50. Everybody is profiting off the skills and sacrifices these players have made – except the athletes that actually create the revenue flow. The system is sick and has to change, or it will eventually suffer a major calamity that forces change upon it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)