Beautiful film that holds up nicely

Triumph of the Will

George Will, that is, who provides a masterful post-mortem on The Obama's recent speechifying in Copenhagen and at the UN, among other places.

Ever since Obama hit the national stage, folks have commented on what a brilliant orator he is. I think he benefits in this regard from comparison to his predecessor, who certainly will never be remembered among the best-spoken of US presidents. There's no doubt that the man does a very good job of reading a speech. But in my book, a great speaker has to actually say something. To opine that Obama is sometimes lacking in the content department is a bit of an understatment.

Here's Will dissecting some recent Obama utterances:

The president, addressing the United Nations General Assembly, intoned: "No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation." What was the speechwriter thinking when he or she assembled that sentence? The "should" was empty moralizing; the "can" was nonsense redundantly refuted by history.

Becoming solemn in Copenhagen, Obama said: "No one expects the games to solve all our collective problems." That's right, no one does. So why say that?

In addition to vapid but well-spoken cliches, as Will points out, the President's comments often display a level of egotism remarkable even among occupants of the Oval Office.

In Copenhagen, Will notes, both the Obamas gave moving speeches about... themselves.

In the 41 sentences of her remarks, Michelle Obama used some form of the personal pronouns "I" or "me" 44 times. Her husband was, comparatively, a shrinking violet, using those pronouns only 26 times in 48 sentences. Still, 70 times in 89 sentences was sufficient to convey the message that somehow their fascinating selves were what made, or should have made, Chicago's case compelling.

Presidents often come to be characterized by particular adjectives: "honest" Abe Lincoln, "Grover the Good" Cleveland, "energetic" Theodore Roosevelt, "idealistic" Woodrow Wilson, "Silent Cal" Coolidge, "confident" FDR, "likable" Ike Eisenhower. Less happily, there were "Tricky Dick" Nixon and "Slick Willie" Clinton. Unhappy will be a president whose defining adjective is "vain."

Pretty Funny

Have you noticed that all the funny stuff comes from the opposition?

When Bush and Co. were in power, most of the good zingers came from the Left. Now it seems to be reversed.

Just Watch, Please

Here's part of the problem

From Time via Yahoo, regarding the Afghan war debate:

As Commander in Chief, the President is forced to strike a balance between his generals' combat needs and what America is prepared to commit. No President wants to send more young men and women into harm's way than is necessary

Sorry, but this "analysis" is bass-ackwards.

"Sending more young men and women into harm's way than is necessary" is not the problem. The more we send, and the more overwhelming our forces are, the less harm there will be. You don't incur casualties by sending too many troops. You incur casualties by sending too few.

Negotiating a compromise works in politics. It does not work in war. Striking a balance between generals' combat needs and what America is prepared to commit is a recipe for disaster.

There are two options here, as in any war:
1) All out effort, with overwhelming forces, and get the fight over with as soon as possible.
2) Don't go fight.

The one constant in military history is that the bloodiest battles are between evenly-matched forces. The Obama policy (and the Bush-Rumsfeld policy before him, and the Johnson-MacNamara policy before that) was to go to war with "economy of force." Don't send too many troops - that might be unpopular with the public.

I'll tell you what's unpopular with Americans: long dragged out battles being fought with a halfway commitment. Lots of young men in body bags, who would still be alive if they had sufficient forces to do the job.

If I was an advisor to President Obama, I'd be telling him to make up his fracking mind. If we're going to war, go with single-minded determination and all the forces we can possibly muster. If it's not worth an all-out fight, it's not worth fighting for at all.

Click on this

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."

—Margaret Thatcher


With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people's money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.

The linked Wall Street Journal article above was written by John Mackey, the founder and CEO of Whole Wallet Foods (I mean, Whole Foods). Dude has some constructive suggestions on fiscal policy and health care, a few of which will be familiar to readers of this blog and a few of which are new.

Worth a look, albeit I'm afraid purely academic at this point. Everything they're doing in Washington seems headed diametrically the opposite direction.

Go, David, Go!

IOUSA's David Walker says some unpopular things here, like:
1) Somewhat higher taxes now, or massively higher taxes later. Our choice. Low taxes forever is not going to happen.
2) Universal health coverage will have to mean more modest coverage than the gold-plated Cadillac care that Americans are used to
Not popular, but very true.

He's also right about leadership. No political party or leader is now talking a realistic message about our fiscal situation and what it's going to take to fix it. America needs a sober leader to sit us down and speak some unpleasant facts. Nobody seems to be stepping up.

I would like to see a Fiscal Future Commission as he suggests. Even better, would be if people actually paid attention to such a commission.