Downgrade

Obama: "And the markets agree with me."
Markets: Dow Below 11,000; Nasdaq, S&P Lose 5% After Obama Addresses Downgrade (Yahoo)

Whoops!

Hasn't the time come for President Obama to stop thinking that people will believe something just because he says it on camera? That worked as a candidate - not as President. It is doubtful that even most Republicans and conservatives expected him to end up Jimmy Carter-esque in quality, but right now it's looking that that will be the company he keeps as far as Presidents go. That's rather sad for someone who - regardless of one's feelings about him - came in as someone with incredible oratory skills, polish, and who showed quickly that his views on defense could shift as his understanding of it grew with the office. Liberals certainly expected better of him (in different ways), but nobody of any stripe expected a Presidency this poor.

(It is perhaps just as sad that there is no current Republican candidate that one can point to and say "That would be a huge upgrade!")

I Am A Soldier

In some real-life irony, last night I attended a fantastic dinner by The Harbour League, a Maryland think tank dedicated to government financial transparency, honoring Herb London; the feature speaker was Norman Podhoretz, who was excellent. One of the lines THL's Chairman Eli Gold used when describing London was a President John Adams quote:

"I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy.  My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce, and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry, and Porcelaine."

This morning, as I was going through my feeds, there was an article on Freakonomics in their "Quotes Uncovered" series where someone asked about the quote, wondering if it was Washington. It's odd that I'd never seen the full quote before (the concept of it I have heard), and then suddenly to have heard/seen it twice in 24 hours.

FDR on Government Unions

President Frank Delano Roosevelt, writing to Luther C. Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, of August 16, 1937: (Hat tip: Jake Novak)

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.

Wham

(Hat tip: Mom)

That's all I could think about while reading the op-ed and resignation later to AIG by Jake DeSantis, who slams CEO Ed Liddy for calling "distasteful" the contracts which were promised to employees of AIG - Financial Products repeatedly over the last several months. He also implicitly slams the government for causing this and for their (idiotic) 90% bonus tax.

I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn.

One thing that's always bothered me is the ridiculous claims that "these people are the ones responsible for tearing down the economy". Even if someone wanted to blame the entire mess on credit default swaps (which is simply moronic, as someone who audited CDSs*), every financial company, bank, etc. consists of dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of employees - only a small percentage of which actually carry out CDSs. Within those employees, they are carrying out what seemed to be industry standard work by creating and trading CDS contracts, and rightfully so. This idea of "punishing" people is not genuine at all - it's a thinly veiled attempt at class warfare. Every single person who reads that piece and has already decided that AIG shouldn't get their bonuses will smugly say "what's he complaining about? His last bonus was 3/4 of a million dollars!", ignoring that we're talking about breaking contracts, possibly the single most important section of laws in this (or any) free country. We're also talking about honor, commitment, and fairness.

Every single thing so far with the AIG bonuses has been a smokescreen. This is not about "holding those responsible" for the economic downturn. It's about punitively punishing those who stayed behind to clean up some of the mess. It's about striking at those who make more money than we do**. If you would ask 100 people on the street what they know about AIG, they might say "they sell insurance", and they'd probably talk about how they got outrageous bonuses with government money. Nobody has any clue about AIG - they just know it was "rich people" getting more money, and seemingly from taxpayers (which is also almost all rich people now, but that's a different story). Yes - $165 million in bonuses were handed out, or less than 1/10th of one percent [0.1%, or .001 total] of the $170,000 Million (or $170 Billion) the US government gave AIG. That's a tiny percentage of the money heading to fulfill contractual obligations, while billions (!) will be wasted on things that have nothing to do with obligations or growth or anything of the sort.

When President Obama announced the recent $787 Billion "stimulus" plan, which was criticized as being not stimulating at all but a debt-monger, he acknowledged that it "wasn't perfect" - admitting that hundreds of billions were not going to be used in useful ways in terms of what the bill was about. Perhaps more blatant was the many Billions of dollars in pork projects he waved through, despite campaigning on a promise to never allow pork projects. Billions (!) of dollars, or many times more than the contracts being fulfilled by AIG.

The AIG bonus outrage is class warfare. Let's be honest at least about that much.

* CDSs were effectively insurance on mortgages that were bought by their bank/hedge fund/company and that then turned bad. It would be like people taking out hurricane insurance in Florida, and then having the nerve to actually cash out on the insurance when a hurricane hit. What should they do? Not claim the money which is rightfully theirs?

** It's also about blaming a company which failed primarily because other companies (rightfully) asked for collateral calls that normally would be a cinch to make, then nobody would lend them the money to make the call despite knowing at the time that they'd be able to pay it back (again, rightfully, and they shouldn't have placed themselves so precariously - but that never was an issue until that day).

A Little Boy Writes to God

(Received via my Dad)

A little boy wanted $100.00 very badly and prayed for weeks, but nothing happened.

Then he decided to write God a letter requesting the $100.00.

When the postal authorities received the letter to God, USA, they decided to send it to the President.

The president was so amused that he instructed his secretary to send the little boy a $5.00 bill.

The president thought this would appear to be a lot of money to a little boy.

The little boy was delighted with the $5.00 bill and sat down to write a thank-you note to God, which read:

Dear God,

Thank you very much for sending the money. However, I noticed that for some reason you sent it through Washington, D.C., and those idiots deducted $95.00 in taxes.

Whose Fine Face

(to the tune of London Bridge is Falling Down, this is what we've been hearing the past few days)

Whose fine face is on the penny,
on the penny, on the penny,
whose fine face is on the penny,
Abraham Lincoln.

Whose fine face is on the quarter,
on the quarter, on the quarter,
whose fine face is on the quarter,
George Washington.

Elianna loves playing with her pushka (charity box) and will point to Washington and say "Daddy, that's George Washington!" before putting it in. It's really cute.

It should be a busy President's Day - for those who have off, enjoy!

Skip This Post

If you have no interest in politics, please skip this post. :)

(Alternatively, why I need a radio show of my own; it's so much easier and faster to just say all this stuff!)

The following are numerous reasons why President Obama will either break many of his campaign promises or slowly but surely push this country toward a future that will be hard to reverse and horrible to try and keep. It's also worth noting how the same actions are analyzed depending on who is carrying them out - President Bush or President Obama. I suggest to anyone to take a few minutes and read the last few posts on Best of the Web, which is the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto's daily commentary. He sums up a few of the same points perfectly.

Before getting to the stimulus, which is obviously most important, it's worth discussing a few other issues.

Torture: While campaigning, Obama promised, with much support from the hard left, banning torture of terrorist suspects to find out information. Claims of how US soldiers waterboards countless prisoners and other horrible techniques became rallying cries. In reality, however, the US only waterboarded 3 Al Qaeda members in 2003, and learned credible information from each; in total, less than 100 prisoners were subjected to any harsh techniques (sleep deprivation, cold). Recently, President Obama signed into law a piece of paper banning such practices and limiting the CIA to use only what is in the Field Manual (which is what is done to almost all prisoners already). At the same time, he appointed a task force to determine if the Field Manual does not allow them to go far enough in situations where more information might be gathered. In other words, Obama is merely changing the law to a higher level of allowance for torture while decrying the same practices under the Bush administration.

Wiretapping:

Remember those "illegal" wiretaps that so many complained about, and the Bush administration argued were perfectly legal (and limited solely to people contacted from overseas by known combatants)? Well, the same court that supposedly would have a problem with it ruled that Bush was completely within his rights. Whoops. Meanwhile, President Obama now gets to do the same thing without criticism. This is good for America, but it's sad that it was another false drop in the bucket poured over Bush's tenure in office.

Speaking of Bush hatred: This piece on Bush hatred and Obama euphoria is fascinating in its approach.

It is not that our universities invest the fundamental principles of liberalism with religious meaning -- after all the Declaration of Independence identifies a religious root of our freedom and equality. Rather, they infuse a certain progressive interpretation of our freedom and equality with sacred significance, zealously requiring not only outward obedience to its policy dictates but inner persuasion of the heart and mind. This transforms dissenters into apostates or heretics, and leaders into redeemers. Consequently, though Bush hatred may weaken as the 43rd president minds his business back home in Texas, and while Obama euphoria may fade as the 44th president is compelled to immerse himself in the daunting ambiguities of power, our universities will continue to educate students to believe that hatred and euphoria reflect political wisdom.

World opinion was supposed to be a great Obama strength. But... eh, not so much:

• Iran. Since President Obama's inauguration, Iran has launched a satellite into space and declared (with an assist from Russia, which is providing the nuclear fuel) that it would complete its long-delayed reactor at Bushehr later this year.
• Afghanistan. This is the war Mr. Obama has said "we have to win" [...] Germany will not, and probably cannot, commit more than 4,500 soldiers to Afghanistan [...] The French have no plans to increase their troop commitment beyond the 3,300 now there. Mr. Obama, by contrast, may double the U.S. commitment to 60,000 troops.
• North Korea. [...] In late January, Pyongyang announced it was unilaterally withdrawing from its 1991 nonaggression pact with the South.
• Pakistan. Perhaps the most unambiguous of the Bush administration's successes was rolling up the nuclear proliferation network of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan, who was kept under house arrest for five years. [...] Mr. Khan was released last week, ostensibly by order of a Pakistani court, plainly with the consent of the government.
• Russia. [...] Russia will continue to build military bases in Georgia's breakaway republics. It will press ahead with the fueling of the Bushehr reactor.
• The Arab street. [...] so far his efforts at outreach have been met with derision from Arab hard-liners and "liberals" alike.

Of course, at least Obama's White House would be transparent and cooperate more with the press... oh, wait:

But Ben LaBolt immediately bristles when asked to spell his name, refuses to give his job title, and says he is going “off the record” until I stop him to explain that the reporter grants that privilege, not the other way around—a basic journalistic standard that LaBolt seems unaware of. He soon hangs up without even hearing what I called to ask about. [...]

During our brief conversation, Shapiro, like LaBolt (whose name Shapiro did not recognize), started one sentence with “off the record.” Told that the journalist grants the privilege, and that none would be granted here, Shapiro expressed surprise. His surprise was double-barreled, at both the idea that the reporter issues any privilege and that any reporter would decline to talk “off the record.” [...]

Then there's capping executive salaries. Sure, it might make sense if you can cap every single executive salary in the country... but you can't. So... if you're smart and talented, and you know that in Bank A you can make a maximum of $500,000, but in Banks B or C you can make $40 million, where are you going to work? This is particularly important when one consideres the lifestyles of such people, and how far half a million doesn't really get them.

...and that, ladies and gentlemen, is yet another reason why government never competes well with private business, and shouldn't be in the business of private business. Idiots, indeed.

Finally, there's the census. Why, oh why, would a President wish to control the census of the United States of America? Why should a President even be involved in something that should be completely disassociated with the political machine? But the White House now is involved - in the census that will determine the rearrangement of representative districts for Congress, or the way government spends money. Hmm.

I think I'll save the stimulus for another time. Y'all can start reading again. :)

Harvard Prof Imitates FrumDoc

FrumDoc, Tuesday, January 20th:

8:49 PM me:what he said was a whoopsie

Doc: no its not it splits a base action with an adverb

me: http://noyam.wordpress.com/2009/01/20/someone-screwed-up/

Doc: roberts is right

8:50 PM me: but that's the text

Doc: i mean the correct way is "execute faithfully"

not faithfully execute

what do you mean if its wrong its wrong

8:51 PM me: one sec - he says execute the office of the President TO the United States faithfully

both times

Doc: roberts way isnt great but its better than splitting the infinitive!!!! heaven forbid

me: one sec - you think Roberts meant to say execute faithfully?

8:52 PM Doc: that wouldnt split the infinitive

me: but he didn't even say that either time

8:53 PM oh, i see

Doc: so you think just screwed up... no way... he meant to correct the constitutional text

me: lol

8:54 PM but it's weird, he did both, according to the transcript

ROBERTS: ... that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully...
OBAMA: ... that I will execute...
ROBERTS: ... faithfully the office of president of the United States...
OBAMA: ... the office of president of the United States faithfully...

8:55 PM Doc: the question then becomes if the constitution is grammatically incorrect how steadfastly are we required to use that text (incorrect)

Today's NY Times: Oaf of Office.

For all the picky English people out there, you can look at this in one of two ways:

• What you do is really annoying, often silly (correcting the "ain't" in a song?! really?), and can once in a lifetime make you look stupid in front of billions who think the person you're telling it to cannot make a mistake, especially if he tells you "we're going to do it very slowly" the second time; OR
  
• You too could be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Where Government Works

President Obama's inaugural speech was a very good one; I was able to listen to almost all of it on the radio, missing a few lines here and there while I was driving.

While he did make a couple of small points that I think can be reasonably disagreed with, his points were predominantly those with which everyone can agree with. His focus on personal responsibility and his toned-down rhetoric in exchange for practical approaches and a request for the help of the citizens of the United States were wise and well-delivered. His assertion that

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works ... Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

was an excellent one. His offer to the Muslim world was also a well said one:

...we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

Overall, it was a very good speech, though without (as of yet) any memorable lines like JFK or others had. This, too, is good - any such lines can come off as mere rhetoric instead of substantial, and many of the lines we now recall were only remembered further in the future. May God bless President Obama and may he be safe, successful, wise, and humble these next four years while keeping this wonderful country the same.

Other notes:

• Rev. Rick Warren's address was quite good; it was really interesting to have him use Shema Yisroel as a central focus.
  
• Rev. Lowery's address was very nice and a good close.
• I believe it was Sen. Feinstein who was speaking early on who had some overly politicized portions to her speech. It was unnecessary.
• I never realized how different the oaths given to the President and Vice President are; the President's is far simpler than the VP's. Obama seemed to choke up trying to get through it for a second, though perhaps he couldn't hear Justice Roberts well with all the noise.
  
• The booing of President Bush and chants of "Get Out" were tasteless and disgusting; in contrast, the respect President Obama showed, the genuine camaraderie he and his wife seemed to have with the Bushes, and the acknowledgment of the incredible assistance the Bush administration gave to the Obama one in transitioning these few months was incredible.
• President Bush seemed quite relieved to be finished, understandably.

God Bless America!

Watch President Obama's Inauguration Live

Via SaraK, if you'd like to watch the historical inauguration of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, you can click here. As of now (10:43 am) they are on schedule to the minute.

Here are the highlights to watch:

• 9 am/ET: Pre-inaugural coverage from the U.S. Capitol
• 10 am/ET: The swearing-in ceremony begins with music from the Marine Band, the San Francisco Boys Chorus and the San Francisco Girls Chorus. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein will issue the call to order and make brief welcoming remarks, followed by the Rev. Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif.
• 10:30 am/ET: Aretha Franklin, who also sang at former President Bill Clinton's first inauguration, performs. Joe Biden will be sworn in as vice president by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
• 11 am/ET: A musical interlude includes composer John Williams, violinist Itzhak Perlman, cellist Yo-Yo Ma, pianist Gabriela Montero and clarinetist Anthony McGill
• 11:30 am/ET: Obama is sworn in by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts
• Noon/ET: Obama gives his inaugural address, followed by a poem composed and read by New York-born poet Elizabeth Alexander. The Rev. Joseph E. Lowery will follow with a benediction and the national anthem will be played by the U.S. Navy band Sea Chanters.

Enjoy!

Ezzie's Blog Roundup, 1st Day of Chanukah

I got sent an email pitching a book by some website today, and the pitch had a link which included some great quotes. One of the best:

It’s our attitude in life that determines life’s attitude toward us. ~ Earl Nightingale

I've posted many Chanukah videos and links in past years, some which are really fun and entertaining, so feel free to peruse the archives... I'm always partial to this candles "choir". :) Meanwhile, people like R' Gil at Hirhurim have great stuff from the past years, from halacha to history to other interesting posts. Elsewhere...

• President Bush over the last number of years has written a personal letter to every family of every soldier who has been killed while serving in the Middle East (about 4,000). That's truly an amazing, heartfelt gesture by a President.
• Great post on SoccerDad noting that the question (upon the death of Mark Felt, the Watergate "Deep Throat") is not whether the media could uncover such a scandal now, but if they would.
• This blog recorded hit #350,000 this morning. Thanks to all the SerandEz writers, readers, commenters, lurkers, and of course, friends!!
  

Looking Ahead

Just before Barack Obama got up to speak last night, I noted that his speech will be very important in where it focuses its attention. If it would mention the "failed policies of the last eight years", it would be a disaster. If it would talk about working together to move forward, it could be good. Thankfully, President-elect Obama chose the latter route.

While it was an altogether rather boring speech, with a couple of oddities - the emphasis on the thanks to his internal campaign team was somewhat disconcerting, and the "Yes we can" bit at the end was rather forced and lame (perhaps because he seemed understandably exhausted) - the overall message was reasonable and hopeful for those of us who did not vote Obama yesterday.

Today's Wall Street Journal has a pair of good pieces today that I think hint at what President-elect Obama's first responsibilities and tasks should be. The second one, written by former Vice President Al Gore with David Blood, will have to wait until after he is President: Promoting sustainable capitalism. While perhaps Mr. Gore has different ways of doing so when one looks at the details, it certainly behooves Mr. Obama to understand what policies will promote sustainable capitalism and which ones will not.

But it is the first piece, written by a lawyer who interned for Senator John Kerry, which notes what a disgrace the treatment of George W. Bush, the President of the United States, has been for years. President Clinton certainly took away some of the respect for office in this country, but it was the disrespect accorded to President Bush on a consistent basis by citizens of this country that has gone beyond the pale. In the end, however, it is up to Mr. Obama to resurrect the respect given to a President now in order to ensure that he is given the respect he deserves the next four years.

For the sake of our country, it is time to look ahead.

Shifting Economics

A quick post for this morning...

I once argued that one of the reasons President Bush would eventually go down as one of the most effectual Presidents in history was because of economic policy. Unfortunately, since that point, he has been unable to push most of the points that most people were arguing for at the time, such as revamping Social Security, but he has successfully accomplished another key point:

The biggest trick is to let his policies stay in place for as long as possible. Most of his policies take the right approach--long-term fixes so problems do not recur; planned-out ideas that do not rely on external revenues (taxes, etc.) or fixes to sustain themselves. Unfortunately, many politicians rely on short-term fixes that make people happy enough to keep poll numbers high. It will take a dedicated president to let Mr. Bush's policies ride their course and build up this country and the rest of the world.

While Bush has been unable to add to his tax cuts, he has fought any suggestion to 'try this' or 'try that', and the economy has remained strong because of it. (Lest someone try to point to the housing market, it is important to remember that in a country of free choice, little can be done about stupidity save increasing education, which Bush has tried to push for while others have argued we should 'focus elsewhere'.) This patience and 'sticking to his guns' has not only slowly brought people to grudgingly admit* that the tax cuts worked, that lower taxes have increased growth and in turn tax revenues (gasp!), etc., but a good WSJ piece this morning notes that major Democratic candidates are finally changing their tune somewhat. Yes, they still want to try those short-term fixes that do little but make them popular, but there's a marked difference between that and what they wanted to do in the past.

Education, balance, and patience. Who'd have thunk that those would work?

* I'm sure someone will argue that "people don't think the economy is doing all that well". A friend noted recently that this is garbage. Polls asking people how they are doing economically all come out very favorably; polls asking how they think the economy is doing overall come out far more in the middle, leaning toward 'not so well'. That just means that the media does a nice job of telling everyone about the "struggling economy" even when the economy isn't struggling... and why should people know any better about others' finances? I trust hard numbers and people talking about their own situations far more than polls asking people on the street how "they think" the economy as a whole is doing.

Blessing on Bush?

(Hat tip: FG)

From the OU website:

Reciting a Blessing on Seeing the President of the United States

President George W. Bush arrived in Israel today (January 9, 2008) and Rav Aviner discussed this question today during lunch at the yeshiva.

Question:

If someone sees President Bush should he recite the blessing of "Baruch…she-natan michvodo le-vasar ve-dam - Blessed are You…who has given of His glory to flesh and blood"? (In the Gemara in Berachot 58a, our Rabbis teach that one who sees a non-Jewish king recites the blessing. It is recorded in the Rambam, Hilchot Berachot 10:11 and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 224:8. The Magen Avraham (224:5) writes that one should recite this blessing upon seeing any ruler, who judges and metes out capital punishment lawfully, and whose edicts cannot be altered by the king. The Chatam Sofer, Orach Chaim #159, rules that even if one sees the king outside of his area of "rule," one must still recite the appropriate blessing).

Answer:

No, the President of the United States not a king. Halachic authorities mention four criteria in order to be considered a king for this purpose:

1. One must be the absolute ruler of his kingdom or country (Abudraham, Hilchot Berachit #49, Shut Ha-Radvaz vol. 1 #296). The President of the United States does not have absolute authority. He must bend to the will of the Congress whether he likes it or not.

2. The king must have the ability to administer capital punishment (Shut Chatam Sofer ibid.). The President does not possess this power. While he does have the power to grant life by issuing a pardon, he does not possess the power of death (Shut Be’er Moshe of Rav Moshe Stern vol. 2, # 9). If he issues a pardon to Jonathan Pollard, we can discuss this further.

3. The king must have royal clothing. The President of the United States wears a suit like everyone else (Shut Yehaveh Da’at, vol. 2, #28 and Shut Teshuvot Ve-Hanhagot vol. 2, #139).

4. The king must have an entourage (see Shut Teshuvot Ve-Hanhagot ibid. Rav Sternbuch writes there that he heard that Ha-Gaon Ha-Rav Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld, the great Rav of Yerushalayim before the establishment of the State, once had a private meeting in a tent with the King of Jordan and he recited this blessing). While the President is traveling with 400 guards, it is because he is scared.

People get very scared about what the President says, but there is no need. What he says does not mean that this is the way it is. This is for two reasons: 1. The United States does not help us simply to be kind, but because they profit from it. They need us militarily. We handle this part of the world. They need us technologically. They make planes in the US, and then bring them here and the "chevra" makes them into super-planes. The biggest plane manufacturer has a plant here. It is not to be kind, but to profit. They need us. 2. The President must bend to the will of Congress. The Congress was pro-Israel even before the establishment of the State. The reason is that 98% of Americans believe in the Tanach and it says something as the Land of Israel for the Nation of Israel. The Monroe Doctrine was stated by President James Monroe that Europe would no longer interfere with the affairs of the US: America for Americans. Our Rabbi, Ha-Rav Tzvi Yehudah, applied this doctrine to us: We will not interfere with what America is doing and America should not interfere with what we are doing here.

The President of the most powerful country, with the biggest army, the largest economy, the super-power of the world is visiting the tiny State of Israel, and some people say that this is not "Atchalta De-Geulah – the beginning of the Redemption." Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in Shut Minchat Shlomo (the last responsum in vol. 1) writes that one is obligated to recite four blessings when the Messiah arrives: 1. "Baruch…Chacham Ha-Razim – Blessed are You…Knowers of secrets" which is recited when seeing 600,000 Jews together and certainly at least this many Jews will go out to greet the Messiah. 2. "Baruch…she-chalak mechomato lirei'av - Blessed are You…who has appointed of His knowledge to those who fear him" which is recited when seeing an outstanding Torah scholar and the Messiah will certainly fit this criteria. 3. "Baruch…she-chalak michvodo lirei'av- Blessed are You…who has appointed of His glory to those who fear him" which is recited when seeing a Jewish king. 4. "Shechechiyanu" – Blessing Hashem for having arrived at this moment. We still are waiting for this time to arrive, but we are continuing to advance. After all, the President of the United States is visiting the State of Israel. Instead of reciting a blessing over the President, I recommend reciting two prayers for the Nation of Israel which we recite every day before the Shema: Blessed are you, Hashem, who chooses His Nation of Israel with Love. Blessed are you, Hashem, who love His Nation of Israel.

Gotta Love the USA

At least on the Democratic side:

Stephen Colbert is starting to show up in the presidential polls.

Not high in the polls, but Colbert, who announced last week that he is running for president, is the choice of two percent of the Democrats nationally, according to reports.

And that - we kid you not - is good enough for fifth place in the Democratic primaries right now.

The late-night political humorist ranks behind Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards - but ahead of Gov. Bill Richardson, Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Sen. Mike Gravel.

He is in a statistical dead heat with Sen. Joe Biden - 2.7 percent for Biden versus 2.3 percent for Colbert , a virtual tie in a poll with a five percent margin of error.

Among Republicans, however, he is dead last - behind not only the front runners like Rudy Giuliani and former Gov. Mitt Romney, but also marginal candidates like Reps. Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul.

I think he should start pressing for time on debates and the like. I'm sure it wouldn't take long to get the signatures necessary to run; he should really run. It will make the next year that much more entertaining. Think about it: Wouldn't the look on Hillary's face, on Obama's face, on Edwards' hair, all be great whenever they need to respond to something Colbert has said? Do you treat everything as a joke and run the risk of saying something truly dumb or missing a chance to say something you want? Do you try and take it seriously and come off looking like a tense fool? Colbert wouldn't even need to film a whole show anymore - just show clips from debates. Wouldn't faceoffs between Dennis Kucinich and Colbert be riotous? Plus, Comedy Central would have to give shows to Clinton, Obama, and of course, Kucinich to satisfy the equal time rules, right?

The potential here is amazing. Anyone else have good ideas?

Ezzie's Blog Roundup: Thoughts

A bunch more really good posts for this morning (um, afternoon, since I am just finally posting it now), from all over the place:

• 6) Aidel Maidel starts off with a great, great truth. :) Now if only someone would give us some...! (What?! Stop looking at me like that!)
  
• 5) SoccerDad has a good post on underestimating President Bush... and quotes possibly the best editorial ever written. :D (What?!!!)
• 4) Kefirot has an interesting d'var Torah and lesson. Excerpt:

  So Noah went spiritually downwards, while Moshe went upwards. Why? The Rabbi explained that it was because of how they went about trying to perfect themselves. Noah went for isolation. The world was a bad place, and the best way for him to stay right with God was to keep to himself; to work on himself, and his family. Moshe, on the other hand, was always outwardly focused. He focused on helping everyone else, and by so doing, was raised up himself in the process.
  
  Now I found that fascinating, and immediately related it to a conversation I had, about a year ago, with a young man from a very charedi family. He told me about an article he had read, in Israel, about a group of secular Jews trying to start a Rabbanut Chiloni - a secular rabbinate. He thought it was funny, in an ironic sort of way. What does it mean to have a rabbinate if you're secular?

• 3) I connected way too closely with this post from Fudge.
  
• 2) Freakonomics notes that they did an analysis of IQs among babies, and found almost no difference between races at the age of 1, but that it divided sharply on the way to two years old. It's a fascinating study, and here's what I commented; let me know what you think:

  Very interesting, and to some extent, a cause for optimism. If the difference starts to expand between ages 1 and 2, would that not then mean that perhaps there is a difference in how children are raised and taught while they are just toddlers - how much attention is given to their learning, how people interact with those children, etc.? It would then just be a matter of showing parents techniques or ideas to help their own children.

  [Note: That and the following are both worded terribly. It's a lazy day. Don't over-read into it, please.] Interestingly, as other commenters there have mentioned, blacks from nations in Africa generally score better than African-Americans. I'd wonder if perhaps living under slavery or just being in worse economic shape damaged the black community in terms of parenting, and I think it logical to say that most people learn much of their parenting technique from their own parents.
  
• 1) This post by Noyam was excellent, even if I disagree with small portions. Excerpt:

  When the education they’ve received seems illogical to them, it all gets lumped together. In the same way, when they find comfort in ideas that are deemed kefira, they will instead of rejecting such a label, and continuing to practice Judaism in the way they were brought up, they will reject it all. Instead of accepting that Judaism as a practice can be separated from many of the theories, they reject the whole.

Check it out!

Orthodox Jewish Attorney General

I didn't realize this until Krum mentioned it, but it's certainly pretty cool:

The man who in all likelihood will replace Alberto Gonzales as our next Attorney General will be klapping al cheit this shabbos, shaking lulav and esrog next week, and dancing with the Torah the next. That's right: Judge Michael Mukasey is an Orthodox Jew.

In case you're wondering why you haven't heard that yet, Krum has a theory on that, too. Also, as I noted to Krum, this puts him how many spots away from the Presidency? Is he #4 in line? Either way, hopefully he'll make it past the deliberations without difficulty; yiasher kochacho.

UPDATED: David Linn notes I missed Daled Amos' post on this:

So you want to know more about Bush's appointee to be the new Attorney General?
Check out the Kehilath Jeshurun Bulletin, September 2004 (page 5):
CHATAN BEREISHIT
Hon. Michael Mukasey

What a privilege it is for us to be able to honor the Hon. Michael Mukasey, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

An alumnus of Ramaz, class of 1959, Judge Mukasey received his B.A. from Columbia in 1963 and an LL.B. degree from Yale Law School in 1967. A recipient of an honorary doctorate from Brooklyn Law School, he also won the Federal Bar Council's Learned Hand Medal for Excellence in Federal Jurisprudence.

Cool.

Winning A War

Possibly the point most quickly forgotten with all that has happened in Iraq the past few years was that any reasonable person understood that this was a war that - while the original "war" portion would end quickly - would lead to a state which would take many, many years to pass. A state of infighting, of rebuilding, of terrorism, and the like.

So, for the past number of years, we've been inundated with only one side of what is happening in Iraq by our news media. The AP's head stated something along the lines of it is the job of the media to help end warfare - rather than report the news. You have Democrats saying incredibly stupid things, like this in the WaPo: (via Best of the Web)

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

As James Taranto noted,

"What does it say about Clyburn's party that if things go well for America, it would be "a real big problem for us"?"

What does it say? Simply put, that people have their agendas, and to many, it is more important that the war end no matter the long-terms costs so long as it destroys the President and his party in the short-term. That's why the already much-discussed op-ed in the New York Times earlier this week was so shocking - and so incredibly nice to see. I think it's quite possibly the most important thing the Times has done all year, because it directly contradicts just about everything they have been reporting for months on end. It discusses the great success the US and Iraq have had against the terrorists, particularly since the surge President Bush ordered a number of months ago. Written by two people who are no fans of the war or President Bush, it truthfully discusses the progress being made in so many areas. It basically argues that this is actually working, and we just need to have a little more patience to keep seeing it - exactly what was cautioned by so many 4-1/2 years ago.

Hopefully, not only will these successes continue, but the stupid and petty partisan politics that would rather have us be unsuccessful so certain people can come into power will end. It is shameful that we have politicians who are de facto rooting for our troops to be driven home by a terrorist army, even if that is not what they believe in their hearts. It is more important to so many to try and discredit Gen. Petraeus and President Bush and the idea that we might actually be succeeding - simply so that political points can be scored and troops brought home, no matter the cost. Senator Barack Obama - a leading Democratic Presidential candidate - essentially shrugged off a possible genocide in Iraq, saying such a thing is not our responsibility.

There is but one focus on the left: Pull back the troops, declare failure, and blame that failure on President Bush. It is becoming increasingly hard to understand their motives in any other way.

Not a Big Story

Of course this isn't. After all, it's not the facts that matter, just the thrust that certain people want.

For a similar theme, read the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web. Yesterday's was excellent, regarding a couple of other stories.

Is This The Next President?

Thanks to the invitation of a friend and former blogger, I was able to listen to Rudy Guiliani speak today at the New York Sheraton near my office. I wasn't sure what to expect, to be honest; as this friend knows, I'm currently not favoring anybody in the 2008 elections, though I have already decided which candidates I do not like and why.

The room was small, holding perhaps 300 people, but was full. I was surprised by the large number of Orthodox Jews there, particularly Chassidim, including one old family friend; there must have been over 30 frum people there. The stated purpose of the gathering was to show the strong New York support Giuliani has, then having him speak and answer a few short questions.

After a few others spoke (generally short and well) about his leadership, a few of his accomplishments as mayor and how that translates nationally, and the support they were giving him, Giuliani himself spoke. [I'm not going to mention much of what he talked about in this post - perhaps a later one if/when I get a transcript.] I was surprised by a number of things, starting with his demeanor. I expected him to be cheesy and extremely political/guarded with certain sound-byte type statements... but he wasn't at all. He was actually interesting, speaking in a very straight-forward way about what he thinks needs to be done and why, and explaining that nothing is perfect. He also was honest - particularly in the Q&A - about issues which he doesn't yet know enough about. One of the most important features was his ability to give detailed, explained responses and statements - essentially the reverse of what many (on both sides) have been complaining about Barack Obama and a few of the Republican candidates.

As one person noted in an e-mail list I'm on, he's finally gotten past trying to play a lot of the political games, and has started to simply say "Look: This is what I believe, and [if applicable] did for eight years as mayor. This is how I'd do it to accomplish the same goal when I'm President." More importantly, he's not trying be anything he's not anymore, which I felt he was doing as recently as about a month ago. He also discussed a couple of points which I think are very important, notably that the Republican Party shouldn't approach elections with numerous states viewed as losses before they've even begun; as I've discussed before, even if the GOP won just the strong Bush states and picked up NY and one tossup, they can win the election. Just by being able to challenge in the other states makes it almost guaranteed that the GOP can win; sweeping a few turns the election into a landslide.

Obviously, his biggest problem is winning a primary against right-wing conservatives. The fact that he's "electable" will sway many; if he can imply that social issues should be states issues, he'll pick up a lot more. One of the most important points of the night was noted by a man seated behind me in conversation: Whatever he himself may feel on abortion, while he was mayor, Giuliani's record was actually decently conservative - both reducing the number of abortions by a large margin and reducing funding for it.

It will definitely be interesting to see how this election season continues to shape up, and obviously it's way too early to be definitive about favorites. But for the time being, at least, I'm substantially more inclined to vote for Rudy Giuliani than I might have been. Will he be the next President of the United States? Time will tell.