Obama Inaugural Ceremonies Inaccessible to Disabled

It's not a story that's getting a lot of coverage, but given the unprecedented adulation to an incoming presidential administration, readers might appreciate it.

It turns out that for a candidate and now president-elect who's supposed to be all about hope, change, and the promise of America, the more we learn about this man, the less we see of his concern for others and the more we see of his self-aggrandizement and Lincolnian pimping (and mind you this is before he's done a single thing in office).

Apparently, most inaugural ceremonies will be largely inaccessible to people with disabilities, AND the representative of the congressional inaugural planning committee, Carole Florman, has publicly suggested that the disabled stay home to watch the historic events on television:

Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the congressional committee, said her office is “very concerned” about the issue and is planning to be as accessible as possible, but circumstances outside of their control have created unique challenges.

“We can’t do anything about traffic, we can’t bring people closer for drop-off than the security perimeter will allow, we can’t do anything about the fact that the city is closing bridges,” Florman said. “This is of great concern to us.”

What Florman hopes for, she said, is for people — especially those with special needs, such as the disabled, the elderly and those with small children — to take seriously the potential for enormous crowds and dreadful weather, and plan accordingly.

“Some people may be better off trying to watch it on TV,” Florman said.

William Peace, author of the book The Bad Cripple, on his life dealing with paraplegia since the age of 18, add this:

Gee, thanks Ms. Florman. Now I know that not only were there circumstances beyond your control that prevent people with disabilities from attending the inauguration but you were also worried about our well being and safety. We disabled people are ever so fragile and dependent upon the kindness of others. This sort of antiquated thinking was used to prevent disabled children from attending public school (they were a fire hazard) or flying on commercial jets (they were a flight safety risk). The year is 2009 not 1959.

The fact is Obama is rapidly developing a reputation for holding events that are not accessible. He did this during the campaign and now in an event that is supposedly the most accessible inauguration in history his staff is telling people with disabilities they should watch the inauguration at home on TV.

About the Comments

Here's this from one of the leftist commenters at my post yesterday: "I have noticed a lot of your former commenters have abandoned this page."

This is the second or third time I've seen observations like this in the comment threads at recent posts. Some of the lefties apparently sense a victory of sorts, that they've defeated me, or driven away readers. So, I thought I'd respond and put things in perspective around here.

Yes, some commenters have decided they'd rather not participate in the comment threads. As noted previously elsewhere, I routinely get e-mails from readers thanking me for my work here, and urging me to keep it up. Norman Gersman, a fine man who wrote a guest post at American Power two weeks ago, is one example.

But let me share, by permission, a couple of remarks from readers who wish to remain anonymous:

Donald ... you've given me a lot of hope over the past year. One day I hope, my friend, we will clink our glasses and discuss our world and the greatness of our country together!

Keep the home fires burning, while I am reluctant to post in your blog due to some nefarious posters, I do appreciate your existence, because it gives me a sense of security to know that you are out there, with my similar interests and beliefs at your core!

I have highlighted the key portion above on the nature of the "progressive" commenters. The adjective "nefarious" is particularly interesting in this context, as it's defined as "extremely wicked" and its related and synonymous terms include "abominable," "debased," and "heinous," among many others.

These words correspond with the feelings of another reader here, who often tells me she is "horrified" at the unspeakable monstrosity of the left's ideological amorality and the ready nihilism in the threads:

Donald ... I just got caught up on your blog, since yesterday ...

To say that the commenters are really bad, is being too kind. Honestly, I can hardly read them, anymore. They make me sick. After reading the few that were posted the last time I checked, I kept asking myself 'whose children are they ... what kind of people instilled in them, the horrible mindset that they have? ...

I am really sick in my very soul, Donald. I can't believe that there are people like that, who really think like that. It sickens me in a way that I can't even describe. And to think that for every single one of the worst commenters, there are thousands more, with even worse, and more depraved ideologies. Knowing that it is only going to get worse after the inauguration, only makes it more devastating. I can't believe that things will ever be right in our country again ... not ever.

The radical progressives, the perverted, God-hating liberals laugh in His face, and deride people with true morals, and reverence for God. If only they knew how short their time will be for doing that, and the terrible consequences of it. Those commenters think that they are so clever, and laugh at you for your determination in exposing them for what they are ... but did you notice that Repsac3 ... Why do they keep coming back, I wonder? I don't comment anymore, because I don't want any of them ever coming to my blog, for any reason.

Again, these readers are anonymous. I wish they could comment on my blog, and they may sometime, but it's up to them if they feel safe and not unclean. People know that I try to respect most commenters, even those who disagree with me, and people of all persuasions are free to participate at my house, as long as they don't attack me or other posters with racism, anti-Semitism, or personal threats.

But let me dwell on Repsac3 for a minute, since my second reader above mentioned him. While he's by no means the only one causing literal fits of incredulity and moral horror, Repsac3 and his "progressive" blogging alliance truly illustrate what's wrong with the contemporary ideological left in American politics today.

I use the term "nihilist" frequently. Nihilism as philosophy goes back to Friedrich Nietzsche and the ideology of nothingness. But there are many strands, and some more recent philosophers describe a "postmodern nihilism" that's closest to my usage. Hyperdictionary suggests nihilism is a "complete denial of all established authority and institutions," and Merriam-Webster discusses nihilism as "a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths."According to Wikipedia: "Postmodern and poststructuralist thought deny the very grounds on which Western cultures have based their 'truths': absolute knowledge and meaning, a 'decentralization' of authorship, the accumulation of positive knowledge, historical progress, and the ideals of humanism and the Enlightenment."

Perhaps folks can quibble on the fine details and epistemological foundations. I simply use "nihilist" as my shorthand for the radical secularists who are out to destroy America's traditional culture and institutions.

Repsac3 has long had a particular obssession with my blogging, and he's made an endless project in futility of trying to put me down. He does not make arguments, nor does he write his own essays. He offers usually unrelated red herrings and evasions, and shifts the burden of proof away from central assertions identifying his "progressive" anti-American project. He denies his postmodernism while constantly spouting its central tenets. When confronted with the extreme radicalism of groups like International ANSWER, the leading hardline Stalinist organization which has been leading demonstrating against Proposition 8 and Israel's Gaza incurson, Repsac3 writes long, incoherent disavowals that such protesters have anything to do with "progressives."

This is part and parcel to the postmodern project. As Dr. Sanity indicates this morning, "don't waste your time looking for any sense or consistency in the contradictory demands and rhetoric of the political postmodern demagogues. They will say whatever they need to say in order to obtain and keep power."

Indeed. It is all about power, and more: To Repsac3 and his allies, traditionalism is all a joke. Conservatives are just plain evil. They are a bunch of clinically-deranged extremists spouting racism and archaic values of hierarchy. Repsac3 has literally said he is "laughing" at me and my readers, and he's created a whole new blogging platform to prove it: "American Nihilist."

At risk of feeding the monster, I'm responding here nevertheless to respond in general to this attack on traditionalism, and also to express my disappointment with what's franky the childishness in folks like this. A look at the blog, first of all, shows the inclusion of links to J.D., who is not welcomed at American Power because of his rancid anti-Semitism. Repsac3 links to Andrew Sullivan as well, an anti-Semitic who last year proved beyond any doubt that radical progressivism and wild homosexual licentiousness are acceptable practices at the top levels of mainstream journalism. Repsac3 also links to The Swashzone, a group blog to which he belongs, and whose proprietor has sent to my inbox empty yet wicked e-mail threats against me and my family.

These are bad people, and while it may be a "waste" to chronicle and repudiate them, recall that this is why I initially started blogging, as I wrote in April 2006: "No other single topic or object of analysis in my entire career as a political scientist has worried me as has contemporary anti-Americanism."

People like this have no foundations of universal right and good. They prescribe to a cultural self-actualization of "free to be me" and the denial of Judeo-Christian nationalism. Repsac3 has identified himself as Unitarian, which has been described as a "theologically liberal religion" that rejects the bulk of Christian tradition. That makes sense. In response to my post yesterday defending the Anglo-Protestant model of American national identity, Repsac3 said "I see our traditions & ways of thinking ... taken from our varied national & religious backgrounds."

There you have it: varied national and religious backgrounds ... that is, a postmodern relativism of equality of all groups, traditions, cultures, and norms. With that, it is impossible to denounce the evil in our midst and in the world, because all cultures have moral equivalence and relative worth. It's no wonder that people like this have invested so much hope and irrational love in Barack Obama, himself America's first truly postmodern president. These people hate America, and they'll destroy this country or die trying.

Only God knows if the next fours years will go well for the United States. My readers, as seen in the e-mail comments above, are concerned and even fearful of a virtual end times. I am trying simply to fight the good fight, and I know that what I do is grounded in a humble decency that has not forsaken this country's values for a radical secular humanism that is truly nihilist, anti-American, and self-evidently dangerous.

Obama to Restore American Moral Standing Worldwide

Wasn't Barack Obama supposed to restore American standing in the world? I guess these protesters in Iran didn't get the memo:

"But... But... I thought our moral authority would be restored!? The Iranians must mistake Obama for a racist George W. Bush in black face. Yeah! That sounds just about right!"

Anti-American Left Continues to Deny Success in Iraq

It's hard to believe we're still seeing this kind of stuff on the Iraq war, but here's LGM repudiating President Bush and the success of the "surge" counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq:

First, it's far from clear what role, if any, a 15% increase in total U.S. troop deplooyment [sic] in Iraq has played in the country's journey from something close to all-out civil war two years ago, to today's merely horrifying levels of sectarian violence (500 Iraqis are still dying in such violence each month, the per capita equivalent of another 9/11 attack in the U.S. every two weeks. This is what strikes Beinart as a marvelous success, requiring bipartisan hosannas).

That a relatively modest increase in the U.S. troop presence might in and of itself have played no role whatsoever (as opposed to, say, bribing tribal leaders in Anbar, and allowing Baghdad to become almost completely "ethnically cleansed," as well as the purely internal dynamics of Iraqi politics) is quite possible, yet Beinart is so eager to be the classic Beltway centerist [sic] voice of reason that he doesn't even consider that possibility.

Even more objectionable is Beinart's insistence that President Bush showed great courage by ordering the surge. Do we really need any lectures from conspicuously non-combatant warmongering pundits of military age on the meaning of that word? Two years ago Bush was a lame duck president facing a compliant and spineless Congress, who he knew full well would never have the political will to resist whatever new war strategery he deigned to jam down its collective throat. If he had admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a tragic mistake - now that would have required something like courage. Instead he "stayed the course," despite the immense damage his bull-headed idiocies have wreaked.

What else has the man ever done in his whole life but that?

The source for this bile? Why, Cernig, of course.

He and his LGM allies are taking issue with Peter Beinart's piece at the Washington Post, "Admit It: The Surge Worked."

I'm not interesting in debating the point with these idiots. The anti-American left will twist, spin, contort, and defile the Bush administration's record on Iraq, while simultaneously spitting on the gallant civilian and military personnel who worked hard to secure success on the ground.

Tom the Redhunter has frequent Iraq reports from commanders on hand, but see Kimberly Kagan's oustanding overall assessment, "How They Did It Executing the Winning Strategy in Iraq."

Recall, too, that the Democratic defeatists in Congress declared the war lost throughout 2007.

On that, don't miss the report from Peter Feaver, who is a Harvard-trained security expert at Duke University, a former Bush administration official on military policy, and a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Naval Reserve: "Anatomy of the Surge."

Obama Supporters Disrespect American Flag

The photo, from the Baltimore Sun, shows Barack Obama supporters with illegally altered American flags:

According to the United States Code:

* No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America ...

* The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

Nice Deb has more. See also, Memeorandum.

White America's Nightmare Vision

Jason at The Western Experience alerted me to the Atlantic's new cover story, "The End of White America?"

I see the story as a preview of things to come, as a premonition of at least four years under President Obama where the hordes of multi-culti PC guilt-mongers hammer the "evils" of white supremacy until the cows come home, all the while shaking down the "white power" system for endless race preferences and set-asides for the generations of "post-white" hip-hop coolsters who can barely read and to whom the term "four-in-hand" is about as familiar a term as "a hand-written post-interview follow-up letter."

Yep, the times sure are a-changin'.

In any case, I've read the article and what's really bothersome about it is all this discussion of white America "losing control" amid a "post-racial, multicultural landscape." While there may be some scholars and cultural pundits who are struggling with questions of white identity in the coming minority-majority era, it's frankly leftists who are all-consumed by these trends, and it apparently never occurs to the author of this piece (Hua Hsu, mind you, not James Hsu or Stephanie Hsu, but "Hua," all that much better for multi-culti authenticity), that whiteness is not going away anytime soon. Yes, there's the obligatory reference to cranks like Patrick Buchanan who have sounded the tocsins of the culture wars for decades. No, it's simply that by basically announcing that white culture's "got to go" they're preparing the coffin of America's history of achievement, greatness, and power.

Jason has more:

The leftist and secular parts of the liberals in America are beside themselves over the election of Barack Obama. They see it as away to erase the past of America with a chance at a new beginning to remake America. That, of course, means destroying, forgetting, rewriting, replacing — however you choose to look at it — traditional America how it was and how it is today. In order to form a more perfect union, the current one is got to go.

That means doing away with the supposed hierarchy, the traditional image of America. I am talking about removing our “Whiteness” from the face of America. The liberals and the multiculturalist advocates have the hose and can’t wait to give the country a good white-washing.

To the leftist, the election of Obama can not be about the positive aspects and enduring qualities of an open democratic government based off Western culture. When in fact, the results of his victory are enabled because this country puts a premium on equality and opportunity for all. A man or woman can achieve the highest reaches of human possibilities by playing by the rules, working hard, and preparing for success. It is called progress. It is called the “American Dream.” And may I dare say, it was created, governed, reformed, fought for, bled over, and advanced largely by White People.

Yes, white people, and, particularly, their dominant culture of Anglo-American Protestantism, what the late Samuel Huntington described as the "American national identity."

That identity is not proscribed by skin color. As Jason makes clear at the post, it is that identity that made it possible for this nation to overcome the extreme hierarchies of racial inheritance that consigned generations of blacks and people of color to horrendous discrimination and depredations of slavery and segregation, internment and persecution. That we have overcome is of no consequence to writers like Hua Hsu and his/her multicultural brethren. What is good is we now have a black man in the White House who will be more sensitive to cries of "racism" and outrages of race and class "exclusion" than any president in American history. By training and inclination, Barack Obama is one of "them," and that's not to mention the president-elect's skin color, not the color purple, quite - he not having slaved as a cotton-picker or a share-cropper - but dark enough for him to wear the thorny crown of racial guilt upon his brow.

Just today I read a piece at CNN entitled, "Race is Still an Issue for America." And of course it is. Race will be an issue as long as power is to be gained from racial identity, as long as dividends are paid from the politics of racial reparations.

In this sense, it's somewhat counterintuitive that the first black man to ascend to the Oval Office will simultaneously set back race relations to the days of the lunch counter sit-ins. It's that bad in America today, although we no longer have the de jure racial indecencies and injustices of decades and centuries ago.

White America's "nightmare vision," mentioned in the Atlantic's piece, is not found in the loss of "white majority power," but instead in the ideology of the multicultural left, an ideology that will never let white America live in what should be the coming of true multi-racial accomodation and peace.

Islamic Regimes Lead Gathering Storm of "Nuclear Express"

Cernig at Newshoggers reacted predictably to yesterday's Wall Street Journal report on Iranian nuclear proliferation, "Fresh Clues of Iranian Nuclear Intrigue."

Any time there's a new piece on the Iranian threat at WSJ or elsewhere, Cernig immediately denounces it as "beating the drums" for a new "neocon" war in the Middle East, or some other variant of hysterical left-wing antiwar posturing. In this case, the Journal's authors cite strategic expert Gary Milhollin, who suggests that "There doesn't seem to be any real doubt or debate whether Iran is going for the bomb or whether Iran is using front companies to import things ..."

In rebuttal Cernig trots out - one more time - the cooked findings of an outdated NIE analysis from 2007, citing the author and political hack Thomas Fingar for authority (check the link for more).

Apparently Fingar still denounces the worldwide consensus on Iran's capabilities and intentions, despite the conspiratorial pressures of the "political masters" of the capitalist classes and defense industry fearmongers. Meanwhile, Milhollin is turned out for the "evil" neoconservative that he is, having been a scholar at the vile American Enterprise Institute. (No outcry by Cernig on the wicked University of Wisconsin, of course, where Milhollin's an affiliate of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, which is based in Washington. U of W, of course, features one of the most prominent anti-American Middle East Studies programs in the nation, so that's understandable.)

Well it turns out that Gabriel Schoenfeld's got a review up today of Thomas Reed and Danny Stillman's, The Nuclear Express: A Political History of the Bomb and Its Proliferation.

We have to be careful here, of course, since Schoenfeld is a former editor of Commentary (not to be trusted, those Zionists!) who holds a Ph.D. from that most totalitarian of institutions, Harvard University! Not only that, Reed and Stillman are past and present nuclear weapons designers working at the pinnacle of the U.S. military industrial complex (Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos, respectively), no doubt with both of them harboring diabolical designs for nuclear Armageddon with the Mideast's fanatical rogue nuclear despots!

Here's this from Schoenfeld, in any case:

Reed and Stillman conclude that a fierce storm is gathering. They see the Islamic bomb - whether wielded by Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia or some unforeseen possessor of the murderous weaponry - bringing about a world in which "millions will die" and "more than one democratic society will be consigned to the dust-heap of history."

This is from "two of the world's foremost nuclear weapons experts," as the book blurb describes their work. Plus, on close inspection there's no evidence of ties to AEI, nor any alliance to the "evil" Kagan-Kristol cabal of the Washington neocon journalist-think tank nexus. What a relief!

But check back dear readers! Barack Obama has already appointed the "evil" Robert Gates as a "BushCo" holdover, so the corporate pay masters may still get their Persian "puzzle palace" thermonuclear war before we know it!

Foreclosure Crisis

I'm paying close attention to what's going on in the housing markets (as readers may recall), so this piece at the Washington Post is interesting, "The Growing Foreclosure Crisis":

Before Robin Bohnen and her husband, Shane, bought a $1.16 million Mediterranean-style house in an upscale Southern California suburb two years ago, they were not cash-strapped, debt-ridden or credit-impaired.

Now they are all of the above. Soon they also may qualify for one more distressing category: home lost to foreclosure.

"Wake me up, can this really be happening?" the 42-year-old Bohnen says. As she tries to describe how it feels to have the nation's financial crisis land in her living room, the phone rings. She ignores it. "It's probably the bank -- again," she says.

Bohnen once owed her comfortable lifestyle to the dizzying growth that transformed Southern California over the past decade, creating a boom that led many to believe their home values would keep climbing. As the owner of a furniture store born during the housing boom, she provided bean bag chairs and bedroom sets for the brand-new communities that easy credit built.

Now, she and husband just owe. They cannot afford their $6,400 monthly payment, and in this plummeting market, they wouldn't make enough on a sale to pay off their mortgage or recoup the 20 percent they put down to buy their Riverside County home.

They're "underwater," industry parlance for borrowers who owe more on their mortgage than their houses are worth. They have joined the growing line of homeowners seeking a break from their lenders.

Both the departing and incoming administrations in Washington have promised help on the foreclosure front, but providing help requires federal regulators to get their collective arms around the size and shape of the crisis. That isn't easy. No one agency collects information on every loan, every borrower and every delinquency.

But interviews and a Washington Post analysis of available data show that the foreclosure crisis knows no class or income boundaries. Many borrowers ensnared in the evolving mortgage mess do not fit neatly into the stereotypes that surfaced by early 2007 when delinquency rates shot up. They don't have subprime loans, the lending industry's jargon for the higher-rate mortgages made to borrowers with shaky credit or without enough cash for a down payment.

The wave of subprime delinquencies appears to have crested. But in October, for the first time, the number of prime mortgages in delinquency exceeded the subprime loans in danger of default, according to The Post's analysis.

This trend shows up most acutely in California and other high-growth regions, such as Arizona, Nevada, Florida and pockets of the Washington region, most notably in Prince William and Prince George's counties.

The recession has made it tougher for people to pay their mortgages, and crashing home prices have left many borrowers underwater, unable to sell or refinance their way out of trouble. One of every five mortgage holders now has a home worth less than the mortgage on it, according to First American CoreLogic, a firm that tracks mortgages and provided data for The Post's analysis.

There's more at the link.

The Inaugural Prayer

Steve Waldman's got an essay up today, at the Wall Street Journal, on the changing practice and cultural significance of the inaugural prayer.

The Bible upon which President Abraham Lincoln was sworn in for his first inauguration is displayed at the Library of Congress in Washington December 23, 2008. On January 20, 2009, President-elect Obama will take the oath of office using the same Bible Lincoln used.

I found two points of particular interest:

1) The interactive graphics include a discussion of the Bibles used by key presidents, and the scriptural passages upon which they laid their hands. President Dwight D. Eisenhower opened his Bibles (in 1953 and 1957) to Psalm 33:12: "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance."

2) The discussion of Reverend Franklin Graham's decision to offer a less-inclusive prayer at the inauguration of George W. Bush in 2001:

By 2001 conservative evangelicals had become a powerful force in American politics, instrumental to electing George W. Bush to the presidency. Part of the evangelical identity, increasingly, was a pugnacious sense that they were being persecuted and should not be cowed into suppressing their faith. "I knew stating that there is no other Name by which an individual can be saved grate on some ears and prick some hearts," Franklin Graham wrote about his inaugural prayer in his book, "The Name." "However, as a minister of the gospel, I was not there to stroke the egos of men. My role was to acknowledge the all powerful One and please Him....I want to please my Father in heaven no matter the cost." The country's growing religious diversity left evangelical Protestants feeling more defensive and inclined to strut their theological stuff.

January 20th: Inaugural Indoctrination Day

My campus has sponsored a set of inaugural activities to celebrate Barack Obama's accession to the presidency.

One of these is a talk by Dr. Julian Del Gaudio on the morning of the inauguration, "Democratic Presidents, Economic Crisis, and the Possibilities for Progressive Change."

Professor Del Gaudio teaches history in my department. He is co-chair of LBCC's "Campus Progressives," which is a local affiliate of International ANSWER. One might infer that the "progressive change" mentioned in the title of the lecture seeks to move society much further to the left than the current left-right centrism of the traditional American party system.

In any case, it's funny how we never had inauguration celebrations on campus in 2001 or 2005, when President Bush was elected. That's no surprise, of course, but it bears mentioning.

In any case, check out this essay from Sally Zelikovsky, "January 20th, Indoctrination Day," which includes this letter to parents at an unidentified elementary school announcing Obama-related activities:

Dear Parents:

As we begin our 2009 school year, we do so with new hope! As a school community we will celebrate the spirit of CHANGE! We have six days of activities planned for our students, culminating in the viewing of the inauguration of our new president on January 20, 2009. We will all be in our Multipurpose Room, watching together as Barack Obama takes the oath of office.

You will be getting more information in the next few days. Most importantly, we invite you to join your child as we view the inauguration festivities. We will open our doors at 7:00 am on January 20, 2009. We will be showing the event live on our large screen in the Multipurpose Room. Beginning at 8:10, all children will gather, and we will have a variety of events taking place: explanations by guests, singing, music performances, etc.

Our fifth grade students will be leaving for outdoor education camp following the inauguration. Parents of fifth graders will be getting detailed information of the schedule for the day including sleeping bag/suitcase drop off, etc.

Third and fourth grade students are asked to dress in "formal attire" ready for the inaugural ball at lunchtime!! This attire can be as simple as a pair of white gloves, a jacket, a bow tie. During lunch recess there will be "ball" activities for all!

Building up to our inaugural event, we will all participate in a Character/Citizenship Week. We will remember that we are all called to "think wisely", "care" and "grow". Children will be asked to bring "change" for "change" (proceeds for global projects).

There will also be a student bake sale and daily fun events during lunch recess (see flyer below for schedule)

We invite all of you to be part of this historic event. Join us on January 20th in our Multipurpose Room as we celebrate together!

On Barack Hussein's Patriotism

As Barack Hussein prepares for his inauguration (the President-Elect will use his full name), Bernard Chapin suggests we should be "Questioning Obama's Patriotism":

The case of Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann was a cautionary tale. Mrs. Bachmann, while speaking to Chris Matthews on his television show Gutterball, stated, “I’m very concerned that he [Obama] may have anti-American views. That’s what the American people are concerned about. That’s why they want to know what his answers are.” Matthews, ever the partisan Democrat and by far the most devout of Barack Obama’s biased media protectors, referred to this banal statement as “an extraordinary claim.”

Well is it? Of course not. Given Obama’s career, his words, the tone of his autobiography, and his associations with ardent America-haters like Father Michael Pfleger, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, and William Ayers, Bachmann’s words were intuitive and anything but extraordinary. That Obama deems America — in its current configuration — a spurious venture appears to be about as controversial as believing that water is wet.

In the president-elect’s vision, we only will become a great nation if we alter ourselves into becoming another nation, one that precisely matches Obama’s desires and expectations. Regardless, Bachmann faced a reelection donnybrook and was forced to apologize. Recant aside, her expressed opinion was one a sizable plurality of her peers share.

Granted, the pusillanimous nature of the average Republican politician (excluding Bachmann) appalls, but there is no cause for the rest of us to retreat on this issue. In the hopes of clarification, let me state with absolute certainty that the reason we should question the political left’s patriotism is that they are not patriotic.

On a plethora of policies, from immigration to missile defense, the Democratic stance suggests that they do not have a dog in the fight when it comes to America’s national security. Were they not so embarrassed by our history, along with the unfashionable folks who inhabit our non-urban enclaves, they might well think differently.

On a plethora of policies, from immigration to missile defense, the Democratic stance suggests that they do not have a dog in the fight when it comes to America’s national security. Were they not so embarrassed by our history, along with the unfashionable folks who inhabit our non-urban enclaves, they might well think differently.

Moreover, the president-elect’s recent selection of Leon Panetta to become future director of the Central Intelligence Agency underscores this eventuality. It exposes the Achilles heel of the post-sixties Democratic Party. Mr. Panetta has practically no experience of working with the intelligence community in any capacity and neither does our impending director of national intelligence Dennis Blair. Obama argued that Panetta would be “committed to breaking with some of the past practices.”

Which qualifies him for what? Further, what practices need be terminated? Hopefully, the traditional practice of entrusting those who know how to do their jobs with defending the frontiers is not what he had in mind. In all probability, Panetta’s status as a loyal Democrat and one devoted to the Change.gov religion is what necessitated his nomination, but placing him near the apex of our national security apparatus is about as rational as the Detroit Lions hiring me to play cornerback. If Mr. Ford can overlook my not being able to cover receivers and withstand punishment, then he definitely will profit from my never rooting for the other team or leaking information to the Packers.

The ridiculousness of Obama’s choice was even apparent to Senator Dianne Feinstein, who observed, “I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director. My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time.” One would presuppose that the United States would benefit from having a CIA director who was familiar with both the military and the war on terror, but such an assumption fails to take into account the weltanschauung of our president-elect.

To Obama, the CIA job is merely a patronage position. Panetta is a Washington, DC, version of a “soldier for Stroger.” His is a superfluous appointment. As with all leftists, Obama regards America’s principal enemies as being the politicians in the opposition party. The critics of the progressive movement on these shores — as opposed to Islamo-fascists or the dictators of rogue states — are the real threat. After all, what’s a dirty bomb or a hundred thousand Katyusha rockets in comparison to those who correctly deride Obama’s plans for a twenty-first-century economy as “socialism” — which we all know is really a code word for “black.”

Yes, the critics of "progressives"?

That sounds familiar ...

Obama to Facilitate Forced Abortions in China

John McCormack links to a BBC report indicating that more Chinese women would like to have more than one child. Beijing's one-child policy, of course, has drawn condemnation from around the world.

According to McCormack:

Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all refused to fund the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) because the organization helps China execute its one-child policy (and because the UNFPA also funds the occasional unseemly eugenics program). But Barack Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, has pledged to reverse the course of his Republican predecessor and fund the UNFPA. It's somewhat ironic that feminist organizations are the interest groups pushing most strongly for UNFPA funding.

Apparently, if thousands of Chinese women are forced to abort their unborn children--and baby girls, in particular, are targeted for death--well that's just collateral damage in the cause of "women's rights", in the view of groups like NOW. Of course, to be fair, feminists claim that UNFPA does not directly support forced abortions in China. I'm skeptical that UNFPA equipment and funds do not aid some of the doctors performing forced abortions, but it's indisputable that that the Communist party gives local bureaucrats population control goals to meet. When number of births exceeds the desired limit, the bureaucrats sometimes decide to round up women and abort their children. For example, in April 2007 in Guangxi province, "61 pregnant women were injected with an abortive drug after being dragged to local hospitals".

If Obama funds China's population control program without requiring China to prosecute those performing forced abortions--or, ideally, requiring China to do away with its one-child policy altogether--there will be a lot more horrifying stories coming out of China--brought to you, in part, by the American taxpayer.

The last thing we'll see on this is Democratic-leftists protesting Obama's pledge on the UNFPA. The progressive-left devalues life and champions moral depravity, not just in the protection of life, but in traditional family values and the sanctity of moral goodness.

This particular Obama policy pledge is truly an abomination, and it's one more reason folks should be concerned about the coming to power of "The One," and reason as well to oppose the nihilist left mercilessly.

Eric Holder and the Terrorists

Joseph Connor, at the Los Angeles Times, offers one of the more powerful personal stories of the loss from terrorism I've read:

In 1975, when I had just turned 9, my father was killed by terrorists.

He was supposed to be home early on that Jan. 24 for a family celebration of my birthday and that of my brother, who had just turned 11. Instead, while my father was at a business lunch at the historic Fraunces Tavern in New York's financial district, a bomb exploded, killing him and three others. One of my father's colleagues was decapitated, and silverware from the table was lodged in the torsos of the other victims. The Armed Forces of National Liberation, or FALN, a Puerto Rican terrorist group, claimed responsibility.

My father was just 33. Up to that point, his life had been an American success story. The only child of immigrants, he was raised in Washington Heights, a blue-collar section of Manhattan. He worked his way through college and went on to a job at J.P. Morgan, a firm at which his mother had worked nights as a cleaning lady. He was a terrific father. His death has left a gaping hole in our lives.

Now my family is facing a blow of a different kind.

President-elect Barack Obama has nominated a man to be his attorney general who was closely involved in former President Clinton's decision as he was leaving office to pardon 16 FALN members convicted on conspiracy and weapons charges. Though no one was ever charged specifically with the Fraunces Tavern bombing, the FALN proudly claimed responsibility for it amid more than 100 others. Its attacks killed six people and wounded scores of others. Tellingly, the bombings stopped after 10 FALN members were convicted of conspiracy and weapons offenses and sent to prison in 1981. They were among those Clinton chose to pardon.

At the time of the pardons, Eric H. Holder Jr. was deputy attorney general. In considering his department's recommendation on clemency, he met with supporters of the terrorists but ignored their victims. He pushed staff members to drop their strong opposition to a presidential pardon for the FALN members and alter a report they had prepared for the president recommending against clemency. Today, although two turned down their pardons because they were unwilling to renounce violence, many of the convicted FALN members walk free. And a man who was instrumental in their release may become the highest law enforcer in the land.

You have to read the rest at the link.

Needless to say, Connor is not pleased. He works in the New York financial sector, and he lost friends on September 11, 2001. I doubt he'd appreciate being attacked by leftists as a "fearmonger."

President George W. Bush: Farewell Address

Here's the video of President George Bush's farewell address to the nation:

See also the coverage at Memeorandum, including the New York Times', "A Somber Bush Says Farewell to the Nation."

Copies of the text are here and here:

The decades ahead will bring more hard choices for our country, and there are some guiding principles that should shape our course.

While our Nation is safer than it was seven years ago, the gravest threat to our people remains another terrorist attack. Our enemies are patient and determined to strike again. America did nothing to seek or deserve this conflict. But we have been given solemn responsibilities, and we must meet them. We must resist complacency. We must keep our resolve. And we must never let down our guard.

At the same time, we must continue to engage the world with confidence and clear purpose. In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.

As we address these challenges – and others we cannot foresee tonight – America must maintain our moral clarity. I have often spoken to you about good and evil. This has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere.

Freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right. This Nation must continue to speak out for justice and truth. We must always be willing to act in their defense and to advance the cause of peace.

Gay Activists Plan Obama Inaugural Celebrations

Fox News reports that homosexual activists are pulling out all the stops for inaugural-night parties on January 20:

Unprecedented inaugural celebrations for President-elect Barack Obama by gay activist groups, social organizations and ordinary citizens suggests many view his election as a signal of a forthcoming sea change for the gay rights movement in America.

Not surprisingly, the story indicates that these "gayla" party events may not be so family-friendly. According to Americans for Truth (cited in the Fox News article), the Doubletree Hotel Washington will host an inaugural weekend "pig sex" orgy to run concurrently with the "Mid-Atlantic Leather Weekend," the latter being described as "an annual homosexual sadomasochistic celebration" at the Washington Plaza Hotel in D.C.

Some of the raunchy orgiastic activities planned are sexual escapades featuring "rimming stations" used to facilitate oral-anal sodomy in the hotel's business conference rooms (one man lies on the floor with his face pointing up, as seen in the photo above). A more explicit description of the gay orgy activities is found here, in an e-mail announcement of the sadistic event.

No doubt that "No on 8" backers and their "progressive" allies are jumping for joy at all of this gay rights "inclusion."

Meanwhile, the inaugural celebration for Barack Obama is expected to be the most expensive in history, at $150 million, which will put the costs of George W. Bush's second inauguration in the shade ($43 million). Note that Obama takes office amid the most serious downturn since the Great Depression, which raises questions of propriety amid hardship. Of course, we won't be seeing anti-inaugural protests amid the grand splurging, unlike in 2005, when the GOP administration was attacked for "inaugural excess."

It's all double-standards and "rimming-seats" for the Democrats, naturally. Who would want to spoil the progressive-left's rainbow celebrations?

Public Prefers Spending Over Tax Cuts, Poll Finds

From the Wall Street Journal, "Obama, Stimulus Proposals Enjoy Broad Backing in Poll":

Americans support the economic-stimulus plan being pushed by President-elect Barack Obama but worry the government will spend too much money and widen the budget deficit, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found.

Overall, the poll found strong public backing for the stimulus plan and its major planks, particularly proposals to spend more federal money to create jobs.

As Mr. Obama prepares to take office next week, he enjoys enormous good will and higher approval ratings than his predecessors enjoyed upon entering the White House.

The poll found that the handful of problems Mr. Obama's transition has encountered have had little, if any, effect on his standing with the public. And even before the Illinois Democrat is sworn in as the nation's first African-American president, the poll found a large increase in the number of Americans who view race relations positively.

The survey of 1,007 adults was conducted Jan. 9-12 and has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

As a whole, the nation's mood remains glum, with three out of four people surveyed expecting the recession to persist for at least an additional year.

Asked about the economic-stimulus package, now estimated to cost $850 billion over two years, 43% of people surveyed called it a "good idea," while 27% said it is a "bad idea." The rest didn't have an opinion.

Even Republicans and independents think GOP lawmakers should work to move the legislation forward. Asked whether Republicans in Congress should do everything to stand firm for their party's principles and oppose the legislation, or look to compromise with the Obama administration, 68% of Republicans and independents chose compromise, with 20% picking standing firm.

By a nearly 2-to-1 ratio, people preferred government spending to create jobs over tax cuts to give Americans more money to spend. Large majorities endorsed many details in the plan, with 89% saying they like the idea of creating jobs through increasing production of renewable energy and making public buildings more energy efficient.

At the same time, the survey suggests many remain concerned about the potential impact on the government's budget. Sixty percent said they worry more that the government will spend too much money and worsen the deficit, while 33% said they worry more that the government will spend too little.

Read the whole thing, here.

Secular Progressivism in Comparative Perspective

Peter Berkowitz offers a useful analysis of secular progressive ideology in his new essay, "The European Left and Ours." It's an important discussion, especially since hardline American leftists routinely offer the European socialist states as models for the progressive revolution they advance in the American state and society:

The election of Barack Obama as president of the United States marks a dramatic victory for the progressive left in America and a resounding repudiation of George W. Bush’s presidency and the Republican-controlled Congress with which he governed for six years. Obama’s election also represents an historic moment for the United States.

Many have been celebrating throughout the nation, and for good reason, because America, by electing a black man to the highest office in the land, has taken another impressive stride to overcome the last, lingering legacies of slavery and Jim Crow. To be sure, it would have been better if more progressives had bothered to notice, let alone take pride in, how far their country had come when George W. Bush — white, southern, and conservative — named in his first term Colin Powell secretary of state and Condoleezza Rice national security advisor, and in his second term elevated Rice to secretary of state. But the stirring fact remains that Obama’s triumph crowns a half century of steady progress in fulfilling the Declaration of Independence’s grand promise of freedom and equality for all, and in realizing the Constitution’s aspiration to build a more perfect union through representative government. At the same time, Obama’s election reaffirms the reality, frequently denied or derided by progressive anti-American sentiment at home and abroad, that the United States is a land of golden opportunity.

But winning elections is one thing. Governing is another. One reason for apprehension about whether Obama and the congressional Democrats are prepared for the enormous power they will exercise is structural ....

The structural temptation for Obama and his party to take their principles to an extreme is especially worrisome given the propensity for extreme positions and principles that the left of late has shown ....

Perhaps encouragements to moderation will come from other quarters. With President Bush’s departure from the White House, Bush hatred, along with its many ugly symptoms, may subside. The constraints of office and the realities brought home by daily intelligence briefings on America’s enemies may effectively counsel caution and sobriety. And the centrist Democratic candidates who decisively contributed to victory in the 2006 congressional elections and who, with election 2008, now represent a conservative bloc within the Democratic Party, may exercise a restraining influence on the Obama administration.

Unfortunately, the likelihood is small that Obama will receive encouragement from the intellectual class to reach out to the elected representatives of the 46 percent of the country who, on November 4, voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin. Dominated by left-of-center partisans, the mainstream media in Election 2008 frequently abandoned its traditional watchdog function, ignoring, deflecting, or suppressing even reasonable criticism of Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, while pursuing and amplifying even trivial criticisms of McCain and Palin. Meanwhile, colleges and universities, also dominated by left-of-center partisans, remain bastions of intellectual conformism, stigmatizing, where they can’t formally punish, speech and speakers that depart from campus orthodoxy.

The left, though, displays other worrying signs beyond the media’s failure to objectively report the news and our universities’ failure to promote vigorous exploration of all sides of the moral and political challenges the nation confronts. Unfortunately, it is not rare these days for progressives to indulge in a mocking disdain for traditional religious faith and to blithely regard fellow citizens who hold opposing views about abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and same-sex marriage as ignoramuses unfit for civilized discourse. In addition, the left has shown an unwillingness to examine responsibly the tradeoffs between security and liberty the nation has made and will have to continue to make in the struggle against Islamic extremism and mega-terror. It has been all too ready to join forces with the vilifiers of Israel, as demonstrated by its enthusiasm for Stephen Walt’s and John Mearsheimer’s fact-challenged and poorly argued claims, according to which for decades “the Israel Lobby” has dictated American foreign policy in the Middle East while Cold War containment of the Soviet Union and maintenance of the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, apparently, had little or no impact on America’s conduct in the region. And it is disposed not merely to criticize the U.S. when the country is in the wrong, but to see the country as in the wrong grossly and constantly, and, from Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay abroad to race relations and immigration reform at home, it exhibits a penchant for enthusiastically trumpeting the most sensational accusations against America.

There's more at the link.

Roger Gardner: America Besieged

Roger Gardner is the publisher of Radarsite and an occasional commenter at this blog. He's been battling cancer and was originally told by doctors that he had little time left. It turns out his course of medical treatment has been successful beyond hope - with God's blessing no doubt - and Roger's been back to blogging a bit, about politics and the meaning of life. I wish him well in health and life, and he'll be in my prayers tonight.

Roger's got a post up today that's a lazer beam of moral clarity, and I'm pleased to share it with readers in light of the backlash we've seen here in the comments against some of my posts. Tim, Repsac3, and Truth 101 have formed something of a nihilist trio this past couple of days, and the comment threads have not been without fireworks of vituperation. I have recieved an e-mail from one reader who has observed all of this and has decided to stay on the sidelines. This reader repeatedly thanks me for my essays, and commends me for my patience in fending off the many brutal screeds that sometimes fill (pollute?) these threads.

In any case, Roger's essay today provides a perspective on things that's more powerful than I can offer. So please read and consider this excerpt from his post, "Chemo Thoughts: The End of My World?":

Earlier today a friend emailed me to ask how I was doing. I assume they were referring to my ongoing battle with leukemia. I answered that I was doing fine. I had determined early on when I got that first lethal prognosis that I was not going to use the pages of Radarsite for a continual updating on the morbid details of my chemotherapy. So I answered that I was doing fine. But, I wonder, how am I really doing? Am I really doing fine?

Nothing concentrates the mind like a death sentence. Especially one that is so close at hand and almost certain. Priorities are immediately questioned and reshuffled. What seemed of great import yesterday may have lost much or all of its weight today. The love and closeness of family and friends becomes paramount; whereas the opinions of strangers become less and less relevant. The often frenetic muddle of everyday life is quickly subsumed into the greater battle for life itself. There's only enough space left in your life for those things of real value, or perhaps for those values which are real. There's just not enough time left for empty rhetoric or endless gentlemanly debate. In whatever time is left you must embrace your family and your values and hold them dear ....

How do I feel? My friend asks. Here's how I really feel. From those very first days I have accepted my personal prognosis completely and without complaint. I am grateful for the endlessly fascinating life I have been allowed to live. But I have not yet accepted the dire fate that awaits my beloved country. I am filled with shame and disbelief at what we have become, what we are becoming, what we are giving up, what we have forgotten. My usually dependable inherent optimism has been all but eroded by the preposterous events of these last few years. That America I have so long loved and respected has been turned upside down. Those values that separated us from the rest of the world have either been ingloriously degraded or completely abandoned. We no longer know who we are or what we stand for. We allow others to define us, we allow our sworn enemies -- both within and without -- to determine our national agendas. We are in the fateful process of completely losing our national identity. And according to our recent elections, this makes half of our population happy. Half of our population considers our formerly-precious American identity to be the problem. America is what's wrong with this world. To fix the world we must therefore change what it means to be an American. Change we can believe in.

We are presently besieged by savage enemies. Islamists, Marxists, Anarchists, cruel dictators and criminal tyrants. We are besieged by alien cults of death who nurse apocalyptic visions of destruction. Everything that we hold dear is under attack and threatened. But the most dangerous and shameless enemy of all lives right here amongst us. Our very own treacherous patriots, who rush to give the keys to the kingdom to the barbarians at our gates. The idiots, the fools, the delusional liberals, and those elitist amoral progressives who honestly believe that by utterly destroying the fabric of this great nation they will somehow save it. They have traded our pride for guilt and our strength for safety. And I despise them for it. I despise them more than I despise our sworn enemies, because our sworn enemies do not disguise their motives under the cloak of patriotism.

And what of our innocent children? Our beloved grandchildren? What godless world have we bequeathed to them? What is our message to these innocents? There is no right or wrong. Everything is relative. All peoples and all belief systems are morally equal. There is no such thing as good or evil, just different points of view. War is morally wrong, no matter what its purpose. To defend yourself with violence is as unjustifiable as to attack one with violence.

How do I feel? I have been told that my life is coming to an end. So be it. I can deal with that. But can I deal with the prospect of my beloved country coming to an end? Is my beloved country eagerly embracing its own demise? Will our new America truly be willing to fight for its survival in this savage world? Or, as it seems to me now, have we chosen the ignoble road of appeasement and dishonor? Is there still hope for us?

Now, I can't add to much to Roger's elegy to traditionalism without dishonoring his words.

I will say that in my writing, when I characterize secular progressives as "nihilist," I think Roger's essay captures my meaning. As Merriam-Webster's dictionary indicates, nihilism is " a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths." Despite the protestations of the aforementioned commenters at this blog, Roger's "elitist amoral progressives" are one and the same with those who would deny "any objective ground of truth and especially moral truths."

Perhaps this will clarify some things, and thanks so much to Roger for offering his fine and meaningful musings on life, family, and the universal good.

Obama Was for Gay Marriage Before He was Against It

I've argued a couple of times that Barack Obama will capitulate in due time to the hard-left's demands for gay marriage rights. Obama's official "Change" website features the most comprehensive homosexual rights platform of any incoming presidential administration, and while Obama has argued against same-sex marriage while campaigning, by ideology and inclination he's favorably disposed to the gay marriage agenda.

It's no surprise, then, that the news this morning features a number of stories highlighting Obama's past endorsement of full-blown homosexual marriage rights:

In 1996, during his run for Illinois state Senate, Obama offered a progressive gay rights agenda, which is outlined in the memo above in a response to queries from the now-defunct newspaper, Outlines. The Windy City Times, the paper's successor, has the full story, "Obama Changed Views on Gay Marriage" (see also Ben Smith's report).

The Windy City Times claims that it searched its hard-copy archives for the "missing" questionnaires of the Chicago-area candidate positions for that year's elections. In the case of Obama, with the documents just now coming to light, this could be one of the most momentous bait-and-switch operations in American history.

I argued earlier that at some point, given Obama's language of tolerance and his inherent style of finessing the issues, we'd see a push for gay marriage under a new Democratic administration, starting with the repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law the relieves states of official recognition of the gay marriages of citizens of another state. As I argued:

The DOMA says that the federal government will not recogize same-sex marriages as coequal to traditional marriages, and it holds that states need not recognize same-sex marriages that have been lawfully authorized by legislatures of other states.

Should the Obama administration repeal DOMA, the gay marriage movement will become legitimized under a creeping federalism of No on H8 intolerance, as more and more states recognize same-sex weddings across the nation - that is, an Obama administration will give the green light to the destruction of this country's traditionalism by legitimizing claims to homosexual marriage equality.

This would be a huge step toward consolidating a national religion of secular humanism at the federal level of American government and politics. Indeed, this is exactly the outcome demanded by radical same-sex activists. We will see a new national polity built on an ideology of cultural relativism, no longer that great shining City on a Hill, but just one more run-of-the-mill postmaterialist industrial state with an anything-goes program of amoralism nationalism.

Here again, are the stake before us ...

It's only a matter of time before we see Barack Obama shift his position back to favoring the gay marriage agenda. Whether this begins with DOMA or with legal challenges to gay marriage bans in the states, my sense is that Obama's early statements on homosexual rights reflect his core beliefs, and he'll use his office to advance that agenda as a matter of personal principle. Strategically, he might delay this step until after reelection in 2012, but a first-term repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" could set the tone at the federal level for a major public relations campaign by the Obama administration in the years ahead.

I Know What You're Doing, Baby

A couple of the comments threads are getting a little testy today, so I thought we'd better lighten things up with some sounds. Please enjoy Dionne Farris, "I Know" (video starts shortly):

I know what you're doing yeah yeah
I know why you dialed my number
I know what you're doing yeah yeah
I know why you care

I know what you're doing yeah yeah
I know why you say you love me
I know what you're doing yeah yeah
And I don't think it's fair

I know why you dialed my number
I know why you say you're mine
I know what you're doing,

And it's not, gonna work, this time (2)

I know what you're doing yeah yeah
I can never sing in that key
I know what you're doing yeah yeah
And you're the one to blame

I know what you're doing yeah yeah
I know why you can't forgive me
I know why you're singing lost love
The lyrics haven't changed

1-I can recognize the symptoms
You should know I've changed my mind
I know what you're doing
And it's not, gonna work this time
Hey hey hey, said it's not gonna work this time...

I know what you're doing, baby
I know why you call my name
I know why you say you love me
but I can't say the same
(repeat 1)

President Bush to Leave With Dignity and Grace

President Bush gave his last press conference yesterday morning.

The meeting is getting some big play online, very little of it positive.

That's the way it is for this president, who has been hammered relentlessly on his decisionmaking and policies, on issues ranging from tax cuts to warrantless wiretaps. It's not just the left, of course. Many on the right see the Bush years as an epitaph for conservatism. Not me. The country needs a new direction, but the new administration represents cyclical change. The GOP's dominated politics for decades, in both ideas and power. The Democrats will have a go of it now, and there may of a realignment of sorts depending on how successful the Barack Obama administration is.

But I have no doubts this administration's legacy will be great and profound. I've written recently on President Bush's moral clarity, and I'm sad to see this unyielding advocate of American exceptionalism leave the presidency. I'm not one of those conservatives who have soured on Bush. I understand some of the constraints in foreign policy and war that have derailed other administration initiatives in international relations, but as we see in the video above, Bush has understood that the president must often lead rather than follow, especially on public opinion. The war in Iraq is turning out to be a phenomenal achievement, and it will rightly be the centerpiece of the Bush legacy of standing up against rogued regimes who flout the will of the international community.

We are continuing to see, of course, calls for war crimes prosecutions on the left, and the press conference had the tone of a truth commission, where journalists hectored Bush to admit his "failings." When Bush counted out a few lesser flops, that wasn't enough. Dana Milbank criticized Bush for not admitting the "big mistakes." Jennifer Rubin responds, noting President Bush's dignity and grace as he nears exit from office:

Opinion is sharply divided on the Bush presidency, and many of us don’t yet have a firm grasp on how large the failures will loom and how significant the accomplishments may seem in hindsight. But if there were ever a more graceful exit by a president — both in the tone of his interviews and the magnanimous and robust cooperation with his successor (who excoriated him during the campaign in the most personal terms) — I can’t recall it. That too will be part of the legacy.

It will be a monumental legacy. I have no doubt.

Remedial Classroom Civility

I'm back to school this week so I thought I'd share this piece on the absence of student decorum in the classroom.

The essay, "Remedial Civility Training," is not new. I came across it while reading another excellent article in the latest issue of the NEA's teaching journal. But I like the idea of "remedial civility," and the essay's the best piece on the topic I've seen in a long time:

I think it is a serious problem that many public schools - and private ones - have just about given up teaching many of the academic skills that were once considered basic for every high-school graduate, not just the ones going to college. But what really troubles me is that schools - no doubt, mirroring the broader culture - have given up cultivating the ordinary courtesies that enable people to get along without friction and violence.

Instead, I see among my students a dispiriting amount of cynicism about teachers and contempt for learning except as a hurdle over which one must jump on the road to some lucrative career. Some students imagine they will advance on the basis of having a degree, even if their words and manners indicate that they are unsuitable for any kind of job that involves dealing with people. They seem completely unaware that knowing how to behave will have a serious impact on their future prospects.

This is not about the simple rules governing which fork one should use but about norms of behavior about which nearly everyone used to agree and which seem to have vanished from student culture.

There are the students who refuse to address us appropriately; who make border-line insulting remarks in class when called upon (enough to irritate but not enough to require immediate action); who arrive late and slam the door behind them; who yawn continually and never cover their mouths; who neglect to bring books, paper, or even something with which to write; who send demanding e-mail messages without a respectful salutation; who make appointments and never show up (after you just drove 20 miles and put your kids in daycare to make the meeting).

I don't understand students who are so self-absorbed that they don't think their professors' opinion of them (and, hence, their grades) will be affected by those kinds of behaviors, or by remarks like, "I'm only taking this class because I am required to." One would think that the dimmest of them would at least be bright enough to pretend to be a good student.

But my larger concern here is not just that students behave disrespectfully toward their professors. It is that they are increasingly disrespectful to one another, to the point that a serious student has more trouble coping with the behavior of his or her fellow students than learning the material.

In classrooms where the professor is not secure in his or her authority, all around the serious students are others treating the place like a cafeteria: eating and crinkling wrappers (and even belching audibly, convinced that is funny). Some students put their feet up on the chairs and desks, as if they were lounging in a dorm room, even as muddy slush dislodges from their boots. Others come to class dressed in a slovenly or indiscreet manner. They wear hats to conceal that they have not washed that day. In larger lectures, you might see students playing video games or checking e-mail on their laptop computers, or sending messages on cell phones.

I could share dozens of stories on this stuff, and at some point I will, but right now I have to get ready for my 7:30am lecture. I'll be back online this afternoon.