Egyptian Protesters Tear Down Israeli Embassy Security Wall

This video c/o Ahram Online, "VIDEO: Protesters take down Israeli embassy flag."

And at Weasel Zippers, "Arab Spring: Hundreds of Rampaging Egyptians Tear Down Concrete Wall Protecting Israeli Embassy…"

RELATED: At Los Angeles Times, "EGYPT: Thousands in Tahrir Square angry at slow pace of reforms."

No doubt.

The Global Left's Anti-Israel Forum

See Anne Bayefsky, at Weekly Standard, "Durban III: An Anti-Israel Forum Takes Shape" (via Memeorandum).

Gender Equality Elusive at Top?

That was the headline at yesterday's Los Angeles Times business page, although I've added the question mark.

See: "Women on Wall Street: Small group at the top gets smaller."

"While the ouster of a number of top Wall Street women cannot necessarily be tied directly to the glass ceiling or sexism per se, the numbers aren't good," said Deborah Ancona, a professor of organization studies at the MIT's Sloan School of Management. "Women fill a minority of top leadership positions in corporate America."

But RTWT.

Actually, I don't think we'll ever have exact equality in that department, and I don't know if it was God's plan to do so, in any case. As James Taranto has written:

Men and women are intrinsically unequal in ways that are ultimately beyond the power of government to remediate. That is because nature is unfair. Sexual reproduction is far more demanding, both physically and temporally, for women than for men. Men simply do not face the sort of children-or-career conundrums that vex women in an era of workplace equality.

That said, see Patricia Sellers, at Fortune, "Carol Bartz exclusive: Yahoo "f---ed me over..." (At Memeorandum.)

'Time'

Heard this on the way home from "The Undefeated" the other night. And come to think of it, The Sound has been playing a lot of Pink Floyd:



P.S. I'll try to post my thoughts on The Undefeated later today.

The Return of Elitism?

An interesting piece, at Telegraph UK, "David Cameron: we need elitism in schools":

David Cameron will signal a return to “elitism” in schools in an attempt to mend Britain’s “broken” society and secure the economic future.

The Prime Minister will attack the “prizes for all” culture in which competitiveness is frowned upon and winners are shunned.

In a significant speech, he will outline Coalition plans to ensure teaching is based on “excellence”, saying that controversial reforms are needed to “bring back the values of a good education”.

Failure to do so would be “fatal to prosperity”, he will say.

The comments mark the latest in a series of attempts to focus on education in response to the riots that shocked London and other English cities last month.

Actually, we could use less elitism on this side of the Atlantic, and more back to basics, common sense, values-based instruction.

Can We Forgive the September 11 Terrorists?

Well, no. Seem strange to even consider it. The acts perpetrated on September 11 weren't a one off event, but a key moment on Islamism's long-term agenda. We're still fighting the forces that gave rise to this terrorism, and collective responsibility is required before any kind of forgiveness would even be possible. And we're not seeing any of that. In fact, it's just as much anti-Americanism as ever.

But this is an interesting essay, in any case, from Tim Townsend, at WSJ, "Can We Forgive?":

Forgiveness is central to the Christian faith. Christ's death represents the forgiveness of man's sin. All men. All sin. And Christians are expected to try to imitate it. "If Jesus could forgive the people who murdered him, there's something in that model that should apply to all of us," Fr. Ryan said. "I don't understand it all, but I'm willing to follow that model based on everything else I know and believe."

Jewish tradition teaches that since God forgives, so must his creation. Forgiveness is at the heart of the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. But victims are obligated to forgive only when the perpetrator has gone through a process of repentance, called teshuvah. Similarly, in Islam, forgiveness is tied closely to repentance.

Some see moral value in not forgiving. When a dying SS soldier in a concentration camp hospital asked Simon Wiesenthal for his forgiveness for the soldier's part in a massacre of Jews, Wiesenthal remained silent and walked away. A devout friend in the camp told Wiesenthal he had done the right thing: "You would have had no right to do this in the name of people who had not authorized you to do so. What people have done to you yourself, you can, if you like, forgive and forget. That is your own affair. But it would have been a terrible sin to burden your conscience with other people's sufferings."

When the aggrieved have been murdered, and the murderers are gone, too, do those who survived or the families of those who died have the moral standing to forgive? Maybe, Fr. Ryan told me, the answer is simply to stand for the opposite of the evil that was done. "I don't know if I see the devil dressed in red with a pitchfork and hooves," he said. "But evil is a force in the world, and if we don't consciously counteract it, the consequences are tragic."

"I looked up and I saw people jumping," he told me, his eyes glassy. "I saw several of them holding hands." Fr. Ryan paused. "I'm sorry. I don't talk about this a lot."

Yvonne Strahovski at Maxim (VIDEO)

Some Rule 5 action:

And see: "The 23 Hottest Women of Fall TV."

Obama Proposes 'American Jobs Act' (VIDEO)

The main story's at New York Times, "Obama Exhorts Congress on Jobs Plan":

WASHINGTON — Faced with a stalling economy, a hostile Congress and a disenchanted public, President Obama challenged lawmakers in a blunt address Thursday evening to enact a sweeping package of tax cuts and new spending designed to revive the stagnant job market.

Speaking to a joint session of Congress, Mr. Obama ticked off a list of measures he said would put money in people’s pockets, encourage companies to begin hiring again, and jolt an American economy at risk of relapsing into recession. And he all but ordered Congress to pass the legislation.

“You should pass this jobs plan right away,” the president declared.

With Republicans already lining up to condemn the plan, Mr. Obama said, “The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy.”

Though Mr. Obama’s proposals were widely expected — an extension and expansion of the cut in payroll taxes; new spending on schools and public works projects; and an overhaul of unemployment insurance — the overall package was considerably larger than expected, with an estimated $447 billion in stimulus money.

Also at Los Angeles Times, "Obama to Congress: Americans want action now on jobs." The text is available via Memorandum.

All the "pass this jobs bill" agitation is Obama begging the Congress to act. What's interesting is how this sounds like just one more big porkulus, despite Obambi's denials and claims that "everything in this bill is paid for." Amazingly, he still announces that we need higher taxes!!

Jennifer Rubin has more, "Obama: Pay it now, pay for it later":

What was remarkable was the whiff of desperation conveyed by Obama, and the utter lack of interest by the Republicans. The speaker of the House looked bored. The Republicans neither booed nor applauded. No one thinks this grab bag, a mini son of the Stimulus Plan, is going to work. But Republicans must be relieved: Obama said nothing that would either win over independents or exert any pressure on them to pass it.

And back over to LAT, "Republicans' reaction to Obama speech is lukewarm -- and that's a start," and "Economists give Obama's jobs plan mixed reviews.

Added: See what I mean? From Associated Press, "FACT CHECK: Obama's jobs plan paid for? Seems not."

'Hard to Handle'

It took an hour to get to work yesterday. I don't mind, as long as I'm not running late (ha!). I get to listen to the radio. The Sound's playlist is below. The Black Crowes came up just as I got rolling with a cup of coffee:

8:05 - Hard To Handle by Black Crowes

8:16 - Bodhisattva by Steely Dan

8:21 - White Room by Cream

8:27 - Come Together by Aerosmith

8:30 - Jane by Jefferson Starship

8:34 - Magic Man by Heart

8:40 - More Cowbell by Christopher Walken

8:40 - Mississippi Queen by Mountain

8:49 - In The Midnight Hour by Wilson Pickett

8:51 - Move It On Over by George Thorogood

8:56 - White Wedding by Billy Idol

9:00 - Space Oddity by David Bowie

9:05 - We Just Disagree by Dave Mason

9:08 - You Really Got Me by Kinks

More blogging tonight!

Cato Institute: 'Government Spending Doesn't Create Jobs'

Good timing:

'The Undefeated' — Lido Theatre in Newport Beach!

My meetup group has organized a showing of Stephen Bannon's "The Undefeated." It's part of the Liberatore Lecture Series. We'll see how it goes. I'm heading out right now and will post an update later tonight:

Wall Street Journal Not Thrilled With Romney's Jobs Plan

See, "Mitt Romney's 59 Economic Flavors." After the praise, some criticism:

On taxes, Mr. Romney would immediately cut the top corporate income-tax rate to 25% from 35%. His advisers say there's already a bipartisan consensus that the U.S. rate hurts American companies, and they're right. Even Mr. Obama agrees.

But on other taxes, Mr. Romney shrinks from a fight. He says he favors tax reform with lower individual tax rates but only "in the long run." His advisers say that means in the first two years of his Presidency, but then why not sketch out more details?

The answer may lie in his proposal to eliminate the capital gains tax—but only for those who earn less than $200,000 a year. This eviscerates most of the tax cut's economic impact and also suggests that he's afraid of Mr. Obama's class warfare rhetoric. He even picked Mr. Obama's trademark income threshold for the capital gains cut-off.

If Mr. Romney thinks this will let him dodge a class warfare debate, he's fooling himself. Democrats will hit him anyway for opposing Mr. Obama's proposal to raise taxes on higher incomes, dividends and capital gains in 2013. Perhaps Mr. Romney feels that his wealth and background make him especially vulnerable to the class charge, but if he won't openly make the economic case for lower tax rates he'll never get Congress to go along.

On spending, Mr. Romney joins the GOP's "cut, cap and balance" parade, setting a cap on spending over time at 20% of GDP. What Mr. Romney doesn't do is provide even a general map for how to get there, beyond cutting spending on nonsecurity domestic programs by 5% upon taking office.

That does sound a bit timid.

RTWT.

Erick Erickson: Dude Picks Fight With Sarah Palin Supporters, Loses Badly

Erick Erickson goes after Sarah Palin by attacking her supporters as "The Palin Fan Cult," and tops it off with a few juicy digs against the Governor herself. To bolster his case he cites Ann Coulter's comments with Laura Ingraham on Fox News.

The Fox hotties are not my concern, as they're supposed to be critiquing the candidates and pumping the ratings. Erick Erickson's purportedly about building a movement. And it seems to me the last person you'd want to bash in that regard is Sarah Palin. Has she held out too long? Probably. I wish she would've announced early this year so she could've been amassing a war chest to rival Barack Obama's expected $1 billion haul. And that's not counting the possibility that Palin could lose the nomination despite being the ultimate conservative rock star. Fact is, Palin's more in tune with the values of more conservatives than anyone else out there. Frankly, it doesn't matter when she announces, except as a matter of strategy. No doubt the waiting is hard, but it'd still be worth it if she came out in November or December with a major policy speech declaring her candidacy. I'd be behind her in a second. I've said all along that as much as I like and support Michele Bachmann, I throw my support to Palin without batting an eye. (Now, thinking about it, a Palin/Bachmann dream team would put me over the top.) But at this point we don't know, so faulting her for "teasing" only arms Palin's divisions of enemies on the progressive left. And Erick Erickson should know better, but then again, he's obviously not too bright.

In any case, see William Jacobson, "Erick Erickson: “moving on from Sarah Palin is like leaving Scientology”, and Linkmaster Smith, "Not Enough." And more commentary at Memeorandum.

Oh, and don't forget Dan Riehl, "Erick Erickson All Wee Weed Up Over Palin," and "For All The Brave Whiners On Palin."

Encore, 'Reelin' in the Years': Steely Dan with Elliott Randall

I've got some real musical connoisseurs reading this blog. At last night's video, commenter Harkin writes:

Ack - find the original with Elliot Randall. We loves Skunk Baxter but he butchers the solos on this.

Hey, your wish is my command:

That's a raw clip. Here's studio:

And the song's Wikipedia entry has this:

Led Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page has reportedly said that Elliott Randall's guitar solo on "Reelin' In the Years" is his favorite solo of all time.

I can dig it.

United Nations Anti-Semitism

Another devastating video, via Anne Bayefsky, at Big Peace, "The UN’s Anti-Semitism Agenda on Display in ‘Durban III’":

PREVIOUSLY: "United Nations Bias Against Israel."

Ten Years Without an Attack

From John Yoo, at Wall Street Journal (alternative link). Discussing President George W. Bush's leadership, Yoo writes:

Looking back over the decade, the first clear lesson is the critical importance of Mr. Bush’s decision to consider the struggle with al Qaeda a war. Unlike past administrations, his chose not to view al Qaeda as a Middle Eastern version of the mafia, if on a grander scale. The 9/11 attacks constituted an act of war—they were a decapitation strike, an effort to eliminate our nation’s leadership in a single blow. If the Soviet Union had carried out the same attacks, no one would have doubted that the United States was at war.

Al Qaeda’s independence from any nation state would not shield it from the American military and leave it solely to the more tender mercies of the FBI and the courts.

Choosing war opened the arsenal that has decimated al Qaeda’s leadership and blunted its plan of attack. A nation at war need not wait for a suicide bombing to arrest the “suspects” who remain. Instead, it can fire missiles or send in covert teams to pre-emptively capture or kill the enemy. Our government doesn’t need a judge’s permission before tapping an al Qaeda operative’s phones, intercepting his emails, or arresting him.

We need not provide terrorists with Miranda warnings, lawyers and jury trials. A nation at war can detain the enemy without lawyers or civilian trials and interrogate them for information to prevent future attacks.

In its second critical decision, the Bush administration pushed to translate knowledge into action. Winning the war requires, above all, the gathering, analysis and exploitation of intelligence. Before 9/11 our national security bureaucracies, prodded by the civil liberties worries of the courts and Congress, had deliberately handicapped their ability to pull all intelligence into a single mosaic. Passage of the Patriot Act, the expanded interception of international terrorist emails and phone calls, and the tough interrogation of a few high-ranking al Qaeda leaders broadened and deepened the pool of information on our enemy.

At the same time, the intelligence community and the U.S. Armed Forces have honed the integration of tactical intelligence and operations to a deadly knife’s-edge. Bin Laden’s killing this summer was not a one-off lucky shot, but the culmination of a decade of work combining intelligence-gathering, analysis and rapid strike teams. American presidents did not have such reliable options in the past—witness Jimmy Carter’s disastrous attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages or Bill Clinton’s failure to kill or capture bin Laden.

RELATED: "John Yoo at David Horowitz's West Coast Retreat, April 3, 2011."

'It's Civility Week!'

Mandy Nagy is cracking me up!

See, "New Tone: Twitter Users Want Republicans Dead."

Yeah, that is a lot of "new tone" this week, and it's only Wednesday!

Stay classy, progs!

Sarah Palin: Don’t Be Taken In by Union Thugs Like James Hoffa

On Facebook, "Welcome, Union Brothers and Sisters":

In my speech on Saturday in Iowa, I said: “Between bailouts for Wall Street cronies and stimulus projects for union bosses’ security and ‘green energy’ giveaways, [Barack Obama] took care of his friends. And now they’re on course to raise a billion dollars for his re-election bid so that they can do it all over again.” This was shamefully on display yesterday at President Obama’s taxpayer-funded campaign rally in Detroit. In introducing the President, Teamsters President James Hoffa represented precisely what I was talking about as he declared war on concerned independent Americans and on the freshman members we sent to Congress last November by saying, “Let’s take these son-of-a-bitches out!”

What I say now, I say as a proud former union member and the wife, daughter, and sister of union members. So, as a former card-carrying IBEW sister married to a proud former Laborers, IBEW, and later USW member, please hear me out. What I have to say is for the hard working, patriotic, selfless union brothers and sisters in Michigan and throughout our country: Please don’t be taken in by union bosses’ thuggery like Jim Hoffa represented yesterday. Union bosses like this do not have your best interests at heart. What they care about is their own power and re-electing their friend Barack Obama so he will take care of them to the detriment of everyone else.

Read it all...

The Myth of Conservative Purity

From Peter Berkowitz, at Wall Street Journal (and Google):

With the opening of the fall political season and tonight's Republican candidate debate, expect influential conservative voices to clamor for fellow conservatives to set aside half-measures, eschew conciliation, and adhere to conservative principle in its pristine purity. But what does fidelity to conservatism's core convictions mean?

Superstar radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has, with characteristic bravado, championed a take-no-prisoners approach. In late July, as the debt-ceiling debate built to its climax, he understandably exhorted House Speaker John Boehner to stand strong and rightly praised the tea party for "putting country before party." But then Mr. Limbaugh went further. "Winners do not compromise," he declared on air. "Winners do not compromise with themselves. The winners who do compromise are winners who still don't believe in themselves as winners, who still think of themselves as losers."

We saw the results of such thinking in November 2010, when Christine O'Donnell was defeated by Chris Coons in Delaware in the race for Vice President Joe Biden's vacated Senate seat. In Nevada Sharron Angle was defeated by Harry Reid, who was returned to Washington to reclaim his position as Senate majority leader. In both cases, the Republican senatorial candidate was a tea party favorite who lost a very winnable election.

The notion of conservative purity is a myth. The great mission of American conservatism—securing the conditions under which liberty flourishes—has always depended on the weaving together of imperfectly compatible principles and applying them to an evolving and elusive political landscape.

William F. Buckley Jr.'s 1955 Mission Statement announcing the launch of National Review welcomed traditionalists, libertarians and anticommunists. His enterprise provides a model of a big-tent conservatism supported by multiple and competing principles: limited government, free markets, traditional morality and strong national defense.

That's a long time ago. I don't know if we've got big tentyness these days. Besides, I have a hunch Republicans will may well nominate Romney. Perry's giving Romney a run for his money, and I'm not discounting Bachmann. But I'd be surprised if a purity candidate got the nod. That said, maybe purity is what the voters want, or at least in California? We'll know in due time.

RELATED: At LAT, "The real Ronald Reagan may not meet today's GOP standards."

Awaiting Obama's Jobs Speech: The 'Invisible Americans'

From the letters to the editor, at New York Times:

To the Editor:

Re “The Fatal Distraction,” by Paul Krugman (column, Sept. 5):

I am a small-business owner and will never receive money from big giveaway programs to state and local governments. My profits are not at record levels: whom are you talking to?

I am the foundation of the American Dream. I put my house on the line and worry about making the payroll. There is no support from banks or government. I do not have defined benefits or job security because of seniority.

Certainly, our educational system needs help and support to compete in this global economy, but so does my small business. We have no union, no lobbyists in Congress and no time to rally. We go to work every day. Truly, we are the invisible Americans.

BRENDA BEDRICK
East Greenwich, R.I., Sept. 5, 2011