What we Weasel Watchers are watching (and reading)

This week’s submissions to the Watcher’s Council are, as always, excellent and informative:

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

Herman Cain campaign ad

I’m a little concerned about Herman Cain’s manifest lack of foreign policy chops.  Nevertheless, it’s pretty clear that, for Americans committed to American exceptionalism, healthy and fair capitalism, fighting against Islamic terrorism, and strong borders, even the weakest Republican candidate is still going to be better than Barack Obama:

I continue to plan to cast my vote for Candidate ABO — Anyone But Obama.

Snapshots of insanity

North Korea assumes presidency of U.N. arms control conference


“Bare months after the U.N. finally suspended Libya’s Col. Muammar Qaddafi from its Human Rights Council, North Korea wins the propaganda coup of heading the world’s disarmament agency,” the executive director of UN Watch Hillel Neuer said in a statement protesting the move. “It’s asking the fox to guard the chickens, and damages the U.N.’s credibility.”

Damages the U.N.’s credibility? What credibility is there left to damage?

(h/t Weaselzippers.net)

Britain: Iran Testing missiles with nuclear capability

Iran has been carrying out covert ballistic missile tests and rocket launches including testing missiles capable of delivering a nuclear payload, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Wednesday.
He told parliament the tests were in clear contravention of UN resolution 1929.

Again, the credibility of the U.N.? But then, after the attack on Libya by (largely) the U.S. and Europe, it’s doubtful that any country would ever give up its nuclear weapons programs.

(h/t Weaselzippers.net)

To think that once it was once only lunatic fringe groups like the John Birchers who were claimed to be crazy for advocating that the U.S. get out of the U.N. Can anyone provide cogent reasons for the U.S. to keep subsidizing this vile organization’s budget today?


The nuclear cat is out of the bag and, unfortunately, it appears to be leading to its inevitable conclusion. It feels like mid-1930s deja-vu all over again, with the inevitability of world war looming and significant parts of the world either enables it or remain powerless to stop it.



Gee, thanks, Gov. Brown

Got this notice in the mail today:

Unfortunately, Governor Brown has signed into law the bill that we emailed you about earlier today. As a result of this, contracts with all California residents participating in the Amazon Associates Program are terminated effective today, June 29, 2011. Those California residents will no longer receive advertising fees for sales referred to Amazon.com, Endless.com, MYHABIT.COM or SmallParts.com. Please be assured that all qualifying advertising fees earned before today will be processed and paid in full in accordance with the regular payment schedule.

You are receiving this email because our records indicate that you are a resident of California. If you are not currently a resident of California, or if you are relocating to another state in the near future, you can manage the details of your Associates account here. And if you relocate to another state in the near future please contact us for reinstatement into the Amazon Associates Program.

To avoid confusion, we would like to clarify that this development will only impact our ability to offer the Associates Program to California residents and will not affect your ability to purchase from Amazon.com, Endless.com, MYHABIT.COM or SmallParts.com.

We have enjoyed working with you and other California-based participants in the Amazon Associates Program and, if this situation is rectified, would very much welcome the opportunity to re-open our Associates Program to California residents. As mentioned before, we are continuing to work on alternative ways to help California residents monetize their websites and we will be sure to contact you when these become available.


The Amazon Associates Team

Walter Russell Mead dissects the failure of Al Gore

I had heard about a two-part article Mead wrote examining why Gore is a poor leader for the environmental movement, but I only now read it.  It is well worth your time.

Part I

Part II

My favorite quotation from Part I, which goes a long way to explaining the green failures:

Consider how Gore looks to the skeptics.  The peril is imminent, he says.  It is desperate.  The hands of the clock point to twelve.  The seas rise, the coral dies, the fires burn and the great droughts have already begun.  The hounds of Hell have slipped the huntsman’s leash and even now they rush upon us, mouths agape and fangs afoam.

But grave as that danger is, Al Gore can consume more carbon than whole villages in the developing world.  He can consume more electricity than most African schools, incur more carbon debt with one trip in a private plane than most of the earth’s toiling billions will pile up in a lifetime — and he doesn’t worry.  A father of four, he can lecture the world on the perils of overpopulation.  Surely, skeptics reason, if the peril were as great as he says and he cares about it as much as he claims, Gore’s sense of civic duty would call him to set an example of conspicuous non-consumption.  This general sleeps in a mansion, and lectures the soldiers because they want tents.

What this tells the skeptics is that Vice President Gore doesn’t really believe the gospel he proclaims.  That profits from his environmental advocacy enable his affluent lifestyle only deepens their skepticism of the messenger and therefore of the message.  And when they see that the rest of the environmental movement accepts this flagrant contradiction, they conclude, naturally enough, that the other green leaders aren’t as worried as they claim to be.  Al Gore’s lifestyle is a test case for the credibility of his gospel — and it fails. The tolerance of Al Gore’s lifestyle by the environmental leadership is a further test — and that test, too, the greens fail.

I’ve noted before that Mr. Bookworm’s greenism fails when we’re on vacation and someone else is paying the energy bills for his daily demand for two or three fresh bath towels.  I have no problem with being cheap.  I’m cheap, and therefore I conserve energy.  I’m also cheap on other people’s behalf — I think its dishonest to save my money on electricity, but to waste someone else’s.

The greens have wrapped themselves up in a mantle of moral superiority, and that’s a tough garment to wear all the time.  Their problem is that when they periodically cast that rigid mantle off for their own luxury or convenience, it’s pretty clear that they consider themselves so superior, they don’t even need the garb of moral superiority.

I want dinner with Obama

You’ve probably heard that Obama is trying to solicit small donors by holding a raffle, with the prize being a Barack Obama and Joe Biden dinner date.  I think we conservatives are making a huge mistake ignoring this raffle.  It turns out that one can enter without a donation, and I can’t think of anything more interesting than an all expenses paid visit with those two men.  I’m not sure they’d find the evening as delightful as I would, but what the hey, right?

Enter here.

Addressing Paul Krugman’s failures

The increasing disconnect between reality and Paul Krugman’s New York Times opinion articles was one of the things that led me to examine conservativism more closely.  In addition to disliking Krugman’s ideas, I’ve come to dislike Krugman himself, as his anger, embittered, accusatory, demonizing style is the antithesis of reasoned thinking and argument.  Peter Foster seems to agree with me.

The Dark World of Krugman

We have an odd family friend. Fundamentally, she is a nice person and sports a very unconventional view of the world that occasionally emotes great insights into the human condition. She has a major flaw, however, one that she admits as a character flaw: she is an unabashed hater. Despite her husband, kids and friends being conservative, she targets her venom at conservatives. We who love her nonetheless, understand: “conservatives” remind her of her father, a redneck sort of fellow who was a very bad father. She blames him for her mother’s suicide, which occurred when she was very young.


If you dig deep into people’s psyches, you can often find the reason for visceral hatreds and, usually but not always, they have to do with childhood experiences. As Oprah (an abused child) famously remarked, some people seem incapable of shedding their childhood baggage.


So, what is it with Paul Krugman, once a brilliant economist and now a dark troll fulminating ugly thoughts under stone bridges in Liberal-land? This article, contributed by Peter Foster in Canada’s Financial Post, does a brilliant dissection of Krugman’s visceral hatreds and the warped views he espouses on economics, conservatives and climate change (some of which have been repeated rote on this blog by certain participants).



What the article doesn’t do is explain from whence do Paul Krugman’s demons arise. What happened to cause his descent into madness?



Principles are so inconvenient

At lunch today, I was telling Don Quixote about the abortion debate going on here.  I added, jokingly, that I really regret the fact that logic, morality and life experience had inevitably pushed me into a pro-Life (or, at least, mostly pro-Life) position. After all, with a beautiful teenage daughter, parenting would be much simpler if I was unabashedly pro-abortion, as I once was.

Under my old standards, if my daughter showed up pregnant, I would hug her to my breast, and drag her off to the doctor for an abortion.  With the new moral me, if she shows up pregnant (something I very much hope never happens), I’ll have to do battle with my better self.  The mom in me won’t want her exposed to the humiliation of pregnancy (since there are no pregnant teenagers in our pro-abortion community), won’t want her exposed to the risk of pregnancy, and won’t want her exposed to the burdens of parenthood or the pain of adoption.  But the moralist in me won’t be able to say “Well, dear, let’s just take care of that little problem.” I now am forced to acknowledge that it’s not a little problem, it’s a little person.

Principles are hard.

Sliding down the slippery slope on abortion

“Killing a fetus in utero is not the same thing as killing a sentient human being.  When the right gets around to facing scientific facts and abiding by what they say, then we can have an intelligent discussion on the issue.  The US killed tens of thousands of people who were innocent but were at the wrong place at the wrong time in their country of Iraq, and those deaths are a bigger tragedy than millions of fetuses aborted in the US since Roe v. Wade–occuring as they do before the brains in those fetuses know they are alive, feel human pain and loss.  To compare these two sets of deaths is just silly.  I will never understand how conservatives have no problem with collateral damage in the wars that they eagerly support, but worry about fetuses that have less ability to feel pain or suffering than the cattle or chickens that are slaughtered to create Big Macs and McChicken sandwiches.  The morality of the right ignores the realities of pain and suffering, and thus it is morally bankrupt to anyone with basic common sense.”  — abc

I found fascinating the comment abc left on my “leftist morality” post because it is precisely the kind of thinking I had in my teens and twenties.  I was abc.  I know how I got there:  I was raised in San Francisco in liberal Jewish circles and schooled at Berkeley.  What’s more interesting to me is how I left that kind of thinking behind.  My purpose in analyzing my changing attitudes is to say that there is hope for everybody.  Even abc, whom I suspect is rather young, might come to revisit his cherished Leftist dogma.

American Jews are probably amongst the most devout abortion supporters in America.  Those Jews who vote on the abortion-ticket like to point to a very old rabbinic tradition holding that, if a woman is dying during labor, it is acceptable to kill the child, provided that the child has not yet seen the light of day.  Later rabbinic thought expanded this holding to place the child’s life over the mother’s at all times.

These were always narrow exceptions, though.  Pragmatic considerations had to be balanced against God’s injunction to “choose life” and to “be fruitful and multiply.”  Also, in pre-modern times, abortion was both unpopular and risky, and medicine limited a physician’s ability even to assess the risks a pregnant woman was facing.  The early Jewish philosophers were dealing with anomalies that justified abortion, not with Planned Parenthood clinics in every neighborhood.

Although the rabbis wouldn’t recognize abortion today, modern Jews rely on ancient and narrow rabbinical strictures to embrace an ideology that allows abortion, not only in life and death situations, but at all points in time during the pregnancy, and for all reasons.  I grew up, therefore, in a very abortion-friendly milieu.

I also grew up in a Holocaust milieu.  Without exception, all of the older Jewish people whom I knew when I was growing up had a connection to the Holocaust, whether they’d escaped it or lost people to it.  The Holocaust was a defining backdrop to my childhood.

With the Holocaust come questions:  How can a nation deliberately target one entire group of people for extermination?  Please understand in thinking about this question that the dead were not simply unlucky enough to be citizens of a country that was at war, which would make them the ordinary, tragic, collateral damage of traditional warfare.  Nor were these people being killed for acts in which they had engaged, as would be the case with someone tried, convicted and executed for murder, or someone who willing takes up arms against another nation.  Instead, they were targeted simply for being. It was an existential — or, rather, de-existential — slaughter.  You are, therefore you’re dead.  I always knew that acquiescing to the death of innocents simply as a housecleaning matter is evil.

What I tried to tell myself, though, was that abortion, unlike the Holocaust, wasn’t the death of innocents just for housecleaning purposes.  It was the salvation of women, keeping them from abusive relationships, dark alleys and coat hangers.  Except that’s not true.  Or at least, not so true to justify unlimited abortion.  Yes, there are women for whom abortion is the difference between life and death, a situation the rabbis would have recognized and one with which I still feel comfortable.

Living in the Bay Area, however, I knew women who followed the Hippie lifestyle, got too drugged-0ut even to contemplate birth control, and then had an abortion as ex post sexto birth control.  One woman I know did this 11 (yes, eleven) times.  When she finally married and wanted children, she couldn’t get pregnant for love or money.  Nature (or God) has a sense of humor.

The next stage in my development was to be troubled, not by abortion itself, but by the wholesale abortion industry.  I just couldn’t explain away industrialized abortion as something that sat squarely with decency or morality.  I tried another rationalization:  to the extent a human fetus, in its early stages, is indistinguishable from a chicken or dog, it should have at that time in its development the same rights as chickens or dogs — and we shoot chickens, don’t we?  (That’s a rhetorical flourish.  I know that we behead them.)

The argument that the fetus isn’t a person went out the window when I had my own babies.  As I’ve mentioned here before, seeing my daughter’s 16 week-old spine on a scan, something that looked like the most delicate string of pearls, made it impossible for me to deny the fetus’ humanity.  It’s a person.  Likewise, watching my children grow-up and my mom grow old — seeing the connection between baby, toddler, child, teen, young adult, middle aged person, and old person — forced me to recognized that there is a continuum here.  An honest, intelligent person cannot say that the fetus is entirely separate from the baby or the grandmother.  They are one and the same, just at different developmental stages.  To kill a fetus is to kill an old person.

But what about Iraq war?  abc says it’s much better to kill 163 million non-human girl fetuses than it is to kill 100,000 Iraqi civilians.  I disagree.  If we killed civilians simply to houseclean, abc might have an argument.  But as with the rabbis’ distinction between gratuitous abortion and necessary abortion, sometimes we take lives to save lives.  If the Allies had acted against Hitler when he went into the Rhineland, even had that meant killing thousands of Germans, clipping Hitler’s wings would have saved the 20,000,000 lives that WWII destroyed, including the 6,000,000 Jews, the gays, and the gypsies casually exterminated for Aryan housekeeping purposes.  As the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto came to understand, it’s better to fight for your life than to be annihilated because of mindless, evil prejudice.

I have no problem with striking down evil people, whether they lead a nation, operate in a terrorist cell, or kill children in a ghetto.  Since I believe in free will, those who have embraced evil — the Nazis or the Islamists or the gangsters — have forfeited their right to walk freely amongst mankind.  That others are killed alongside them (the woman and children with whom they surround themselves, or those who cannot leave, whether because the system imprisons them or because they know no better) is a tragedy, but it doesn’t lessen the fundamental morality of destroying the evil that creates those prisons.  To quote my favorite Bookworm post:

But what about the innocent lives lost as a result of Pharaoh’s, the Nazi’s, and the Japanese high command’s intransigence? As the Japanese tale shows only too well, the innocents were always going to die, with the only question being whether they would die quickly or slowly. The same holds true for the Germans, whom the Nazis had long ago designated as cannon fodder to support their intensely evil regime. That’s the problem with an evil regime. If you’re unlucky enough to live under that regime, whether or not you support it, you’re going to be cannon fodder. Pharaoh will let you die of plagues, and the Nazi and Japanese leadership will let you be bombed and burned — as long as they can retain their power.

Iran is no different. Although the people bleed and cry under the brutish regime, no plague, including rioting in the streets, has come along that is bad enough to break the back of that tyranny. The people continue to die by inches, and the regime threatens everyone within bombing distance.

Liberals believe that it is immoral to impose serious consequences against the Iranian regime because there are innocents who will suffer from those consequences. What these liberals fail to understand is that, when power doesn’t reside in the people, but resides, instead, in a single group that is insulated from all but the most terrible strikes, imposing small plagues against the country (freezing a few bank accounts, public reprimands, vague threats) is utterly useless. These small plagues, no matter how much they affect the ordinary citizen, do not affect the decision-making process in which a tyrant engages. The only thing that will move the tyrant is to destroy his power base. Everything else is theater.

The Bookworm Turns : A Secret Conservative in Liberal Land, available in e-format for $4.99 at Amazon, Smashwords or through your iBook app.

A righteous person

During WWII, too few in Nazi occupied areas extended help to beleaguered Jews. In the aftermath of the war, the State of Israel recognized those righteous people. The criteria for those who achieve the honor of “Righteous among the Nations” are few and demanding:

Since 1963, a commission, headed by an Israeli Supreme Court justice has been charged with the duty of awarding the title “Righteous among the Nations.”

The commission is guided in its work by certain criteria and meticulously studies all pertinent documentation, including evidence by survivors and other eyewitnesses.

In order to arrive at a fair evaluation of the rescuer’s deeds and motivations, the commission takes into consideration all the circumstances relevant to the rescue story, including the following:

  • How the original contact was made between the rescuer and the rescued.
  • A description of the aid extended.
  • Whether any material compensation was paid in return for the aid, and, if so, in what amount.
  • The dangers and risks faced by the rescuer at the time.
  • The rescuer’s motivations, in so far as this is ascertainable; e.g., friendship, altruism, religious belief, humanitarian considerations, or others.
  • The availability of evidence from the rescued persons (an almost indispensable precondition for the purpose of this program).
  • Other relevant data and pertinent documentation that might shed light on the authenticity and uniqueness of the story.

In general, when the data on hand clearly demonstrates that a non-Jewish person risked his (or her) life, freedom, and safety in order to rescue one or several Jews from the threat of death or deportation to death camps without exacting in advance monetary compensation, this qualifies the rescuer for serious consideration to be awarded the “Righteous Among the Nations” title. This applies equally to rescuers who have since passed away.

I think when you read this story, you will conclude that Darwish Darwish passed the righteousness test.

Watcher’s Council results for June 24

Time flies, especially when you’re running around like a chicken without a head.  How also to explain my delay in posting last week’s Watcher’s Council winners?

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

The only way to shred the Constitution is to fake it

Time Magazine, which is scarcely a relevant publication anymore (at least not the way it was when I was growing up), garnered itself some publicity by questioning whether the Constitution still matters.  Proving that there are good lawyers out there, Aaron Worthing explains the thirteen egregious errors Time made in order to denigrate the Constitution’s importance.

Through fakery, the Times article tries to explain that the Constitution either supports the huge federal government we have today, as well as illegal immigration, affirmative action, and the whole panoply of Leftist causes, or that it should stand in the way of those same causes.  This sleight of hand allows it to ignore the fact that the document as written is antithetical to Leftist/statist government.

The only way to change this stubborn fact is to do the one thing Leftists avoid at all costs:  formal constitutional amendment.  And why do they avoid it?  That’s easy.  They do so because they know that, whether through Congressional amendment or popular vote, the Americans will baulk at the way in which the Leftists want to take a document focused tightly on individual liberty, and turn it into a document that tightens government control.

Worthing’s article is excellent.  I’ll also toot my own horn by pointing you to a post I wrote about how the modern Civil Rights movement has been used as a springboard to fold, spindle and mutilate the Constitution almost beyond recognition.


Hollywood comic Evan Sayet is proving himself to be a truly significant thinker and observer of human foibles. In this commentary, he explores the fundamental divide between the Left and Right /Conservative views of humanity.


One one side you have Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s vision of “perfect” or “natural” human beings distorted by societal corruption. On the other,  you have the Judeo-Christian perception of humans as fallible (broken angels), torn between competing propensities toward good and evil. Building on this divide, Evan Sayet offers trenchant observations on why these two views lead us to very different ways of approaching the world. In this essay, he weaves in the insights of Thomas Sowell on Liberal/Left concepts of “victimization”, explains how the flawed visions of the Left underpin virtually every action taken by the Obama administration, and why such will inevitably lead us to disaster.


I happen to believe that the Jean-Jacques Rousseau vision of humanity is a luxury born of indolence and wealth. One can only indulge in such views when living in a bubble protected from the harsh realities of life. Rousseau lived his life as a parasite, feeding off handouts from wealthy benefactors in exchange for intellectual pablum. He was a hypocrite, of course. His own life and treatment of his family (and women in general) was a despicable refutation of all that he preached. Today, the indulgences of Rousseau’s vision are enjoyed mostly by those who sustain themselves by parasitizing the productive elements of society as well as their own wealthy benefactors. Consider as exhibit A the Leftwing propensities of trust-fund babies, students living on their parents’ dimes and wealthy Hollywood celebs. The hardcore Left is largely an upper-middle class phenomenon, comprised mainly of over-indulged youth that were protected by parents and society from ever having to confront Life’s harsh realities. It was their right, you see.



Sadly, I do not think that there is any easy way to bridge this divide, as it is far too fundamental and deeply ingrained. People have chosen sides.



This divide is  not new, nor is it recent. Humanity has been struggling to resolve these competing visions for millennia. It is addressed in the Old Testament /Torah  Book of Proverbs, for example.


If I was to put my finger on why this has come to be, I would propose that it is the inevitable product of the unparalleled wealth and comforts enjoyed by the West post-WWII. The WWII generation may have remembered the sacrifices made in order to generate such wealth and comfort, but its children and grand children took it for granted and are now in the process of squandering it. Perhaps such a dynamic explains the historical rise and fall of societies.


I do think that, today, this divide is driving us (the world) to a clash of epic proportions that will ultimately force people to confront life the way it really is. This is the way that history seems to work.


Evan Sayet may be a comic in his profession, but he is also proving himself to be a very serious man indeed. Sayet again and again and again…!

Further thoughts on Leftist morality

Earlier today, I urged you to read Peter Wehner’s post about the way in which Leftist ideology paves the way for massacres — massacres that the Left often refuses to ignore, because they don’t fit into the Leftist narrative.   I was thinking about this peculiar morality in connection with a comment I saw on a friend’s facebook page regarding the abortion war certain countries are waging against girls.  A good summary can be had in Jonathan Last’s review of Mara Hvistendahl’s Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men:

In nature, 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. This ratio is biologically ironclad. Between 104 and 106 is the normal range, and that’s as far as the natural window goes. Any other number is the result of unnatural events.

Yet today in India there are 112 boys born for every 100 girls. In China, the number is 121—though plenty of Chinese towns are over the 150 mark. China’s and India’s populations are mammoth enough that their outlying sex ratios have skewed the global average to a biologically impossible 107. But the imbalance is not only in Asia. Azerbaijan stands at 115, Georgia at 118 and Armenia at 120.

What is causing the skewed ratio: abortion. If the male number in the sex ratio is above 106, it means that couples are having abortions when they find out the mother is carrying a girl. By Ms. Hvistendahl’s counting, there have been so many sex-selective abortions in the past three decades that 163 million girls, who by biological averages should have been born, are missing from the world. Moral horror aside, this is likely to be of very large consequence.

It sounds like a factually interesting book, although Last makes it very clear that Hvistendahl damages her book severely by dancing around the core moral issue here, which is that making abortion commonplace inevitably leads to this kind of moral disaster.  Thus:

There is so much to recommend in “Unnatural Selection” that it’s sad to report that Ms. Hvistendahl often displays an unbecoming political provincialism. She begins the book with an approving quote about gender equality from Mao Zedong and carries right along from there. Her desire to fault the West is so ingrained that she criticizes the British Empire’s efforts to stamp out the practice of killing newborn girls in India because “they did so paternalistically, as tyrannical fathers.” She says that the reason surplus men in the American West didn’t take Native American women as brides was that “their particular Anglo-Saxon breed of racism precluded intermixing.” (Through most of human history distinct racial and ethnic groups have only reluctantly intermarried; that she attributes this reluctance to a specific breed of “racism” says less about the American past than about her own biases.) When she writes that a certain idea dates “all the way back to the West’s predominant creation myth,” she means the Bible.

Ms. Hvistendahl is particularly worried that the “right wing” or the “Christian right”—as she labels those whose politics differ from her own—will use sex-selective abortion as part of a wider war on abortion itself. She believes that something must be done about the purposeful aborting of female babies or it could lead to “feminists’ worst nightmare: a ban on all abortions.”

It is telling that Ms. Hvistendahl identifies a ban on abortion—and not the killing of tens of millions of unborn girls—as the “worst nightmare” of feminism. Even though 163 million girls have been denied life solely because of their gender, she can’t help seeing the problem through the lens of an American political issue. Yet, while she is not willing to say that something has gone terribly wrong with the pro-abortion movement, she does recognize that two ideas are coming into conflict: “After decades of fighting for a woman’s right to choose the outcome of her own pregnancy, it is difficult to turn around and point out that women are abusing that right.”

Hvistendahl is not unique in her thinking.  Circling back to the facebook comment I saw, someone essential said that, while all of this is very sad, it’s still better than the ancient practice of exposing unwanted girl babies to the elements.  The problem isn’t one of morality, you see; it’s just a utilitarian issue.  I see mass murder; they see a sad, but relatively humane way that lesser cultures deal with a long-standing societal quirk.

I’m not sure how to wrap up this post.  I’ll let you add whatever codas you please.

The Left’s goals (hint: they aren’t focused on peoples’ well-being)

I like Pete Wehner’s writing a lot.  I don’t always agree with him, but I often do, and I always enjoy the way in which he develops his ideas.  This column, about the post-Vietnamesque horrors that Obama is cheerily planning for Afghanistan (although I’d say the Taliban will be even more savage than the North Vietnamese) is a perfect example of Wehner at his best.

Obama and the DREAM Act

I figured out the analogy for Obama’s little end run around the Congress’ refusal to pass the DREAM Act, which sees him using an executive order to instruct the INS not to crack down on college students and service people who are in this country illegally.  It reminds me of the 18 year old who hangs around the liquor store, waiting until someone who isn’t troubled by underage drinking comes along and buys him the booze.  The fact that an adult made the purchase doesn’t clear the 18 year old of complicity in the illegal act.  It simply means that both the 18 year old and the adult have violated the law.