Sarah Palin Resigns

I know some of you aren't fans, but this is disappointing for me. I hope she's not doing it (can't imagine this would be a good move) because she wants to concentrate on doing something crazy like running for President.

I often wonder if she wouldn't have been better served to have refused the McCain invitation last year and just remained Governor for another term or two. That would have gotten her past the family drama that was hitting right around that time as well. She could have bided her time, built a reputation, and run for, say, the Senate or something, to get some national cred.

She could have been a contender. Not anymore, I don't think.

Good for Helen Thomas.

Following a testy exchange during today’s briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told CNSNews.com that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try.

“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”

From Mona Charen over at The Corner

New York State has decided to use taxpayer funds to pay women to donate their eggs for embryonic stem cell research. That didn't take long. We warned, didn't we, that proponents of this research who claimed that they were only going to use the frozen embryos in fertility clinics slated for destruction anyway were deceiving the public. Welcome to the brave new world of creating human embryos in order to use them as commodities. This is a terrible descent.

Liberals often have a misguided, yet sincere, belief that the enemy and barrier between where we are now and where we need to be is Big Business. A common rallying cry on the left is that Big [Fill in the Blank] is being unfair and must be punished.

Now, of course, there have been and continue to be businesses that operate in a less than ethical manner and/or crush their competition ruthlessly. But we're entering an era of governmental involvement in business hitherto unseen in this country, and one thing that should be noticed is that many of the biggest businesses are all for it.

There's a law of unintended consequences that always gets passed when Congress begins to take on "Big Business", and it is this: the biggest businesses can generally afford whatever onerous burdens Congress decide to lay on them, and often they encourage Congressional action as a way of eliminating their smaller competition.

For instance, I work for a medium-sized Natural Gas exploration company. We find the stuff in the ground that you use to heat your house, cook your food, etc. The Obama administration and the congress have not yet set their sights on "Big Energy", but, trust me, that's coming. When they do, it won't be companies like Shell and Exxon-Mobile that go down. It will be smaller companies like the one I work for, and in the end the big boys will be the only ones standing, stronger than ever. They are, you see, "too big to fail".

Read the rest of this entry . . .

A woman is counseled toward terminating her pregnancy online, here, here and here.

Painful read. I titled this post the way I did because the woman seeking counsel, who ultimately had an abortion, calls her unborn child her "baby" throughout.

Hat Tip: K-Lo at the Corner:
It Takes an Online Village to Have an Abortion.

Follow up responses on the Corner: This one from a woman who had an abortion twenty eight years ago.

And an email from a person who was adopted.

But you can help save a life with just $4.

Mosaic is raising funds for their new mosquito net campaign. They are trying to purchase 3,000 nets for women and children in Uganda.

You can support them by going here. Mailing address is on the site, or you can give online.

One great distinctive about Mosaic is that they have 0% overhead. 100% of your donation goes directly to help those in need. (Their administrative costs are paid for by an independent donor.)

Element has designated 20% of our budget to Mosaic for the past year, and we have found them to be a great organization doing wonderful, tangible ministry to the "least of these" in Africa.

Kid gets hit by meteorite.

No word on when his superpowers kick in.

This past Saturday, my eldest daughter graduated from high school (Summa Cum Laude!). It was a great weekend of celebration all around for our family.

Saturday night, following the graduation and our excellent El Gallo meal at home, Molly and Andrew put on a short, impromptu concert for the family and extended family, with Molly singing Grace Upon Grace by Sandra McCracken and Faith My Eyes by Caedmon's Call, accompanied by Andrew on guitar and harmonies. They sound so good together (I hope to get them to record Grace Upon Grace so I can post it). This was followed by an unplanned, unscripted time of blessing and encouragement as a family. Toward the end, Bethany, our younger daughter, stood up and spoke a sweet, tearful tribute to her older sister. Bethany just finished her sophomore year and is turning into a mature young woman so fast. I'm so proud of her and I had so much fun waltzing with her earlier in the night (to a High School Musical song. I'm a fan).

Someone asked me if I had any words to say. I did, of course, but the main thing I remember saying was that I've never been happier. I'm so blessed and privileged to be married to Jill and dad to Andrew, Molly, Bethany, and Blake.

Some pictures.



The Graduate. She got to wear all this extra stuff (National Honor Society cowl, Summa Cum Laude and French Honor Society ropes) - well deserved. Molly really worked hard in school.



Molly, with Andrew and Blake. Blake's not smiling for some reason . . .




. . . so he obviously needed a hug. My nephew Sawyer is also in the pic, to the left.




Better!




I love this pic of Molly and Bethany. My niece Macy is also in the picture, to the right.

I don't have any pictures of it (not that we didn't take any, I just don't have them uploaded) but the next day Molly also played piano for about fifty people for her Senior Recital. It was awesome.

Great weekend!

Make it stop . . .

EVAN THOMAS: Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God. He’s-

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

THOMAS: He's going to bring all different sides together.

Emphasis mine.


[H/T Jonah]

Breaking new Champ video. From Cryptomundo:

There is breaking news from Vermont of new footage of an alleged lake monster (”Champ”?) from Lake Champlain.

This appears to be a developing story in the state . . .

More on Champ.

This is the first year since such questions have been surveyed that the majority of Americans are identifying as "pro-life" on the question of abortion. It will of course take much more than popular opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade, but it is quite remarkable, this shift in opinion, nonetheless.

How idiotic it is, then, to create martyrs for the pro-choice cause. How idiotic it is to risk dissolving popular sentiment for the pro-life cause. One murderous weirdo risks turning any ground gained back against the cause of the right of the unborn to live.

It doesn't advance the cause at all. It sets it back. And adds more doctors to the ranks of the resolute and emboldened abortionist trade, more years to the era of abortion. More babies.

And of course apart from murder being an illogical and impractical strategy, it is also wrong. Which is to say, even if it was a logical strategy and a practical one, it still would be a sinful one.

As seen on the Corner, the NLRC responds to the murder, in a church, of abortion doctor George Tiller:

NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE CONDEMNS THE KILLING OF DR. GEORGE TILLER

WASHINGTON – The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nation's largest pro-life group, today condemned the killing of Dr. George Tiller. The following statement may be attributed to NRLC Executive Director, David N. O'Steen, Ph.D.:

National Right to Life extends its sympathies to Dr. Tiller's family over this loss of life.

Further, the National Right to Life Committee unequivocally condemns any such acts of violence regardless of motivation. The pro-life movement works to protect the right to life and increase respect for human life. The unlawful use of violence is directly contrary to that goal.

The National Right to Life Committee has always been involved in peaceful, legal activities to protect human lives threatened by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. We always have and will continue to oppose any form of violence to fight the violence of abortion. NRLC has had a policy of forbidding violence or illegal activity by its staff, directors, officers, affiliated state organizations and chapters. NRLC's sole purpose is to protect innocent human life.

NRLC will continue to work through educational and legislative activities to ensure the right to life for unborn children, people with disabilities and older people. NRLC will continue to work for peaceful solutions to aid pregnant women and their unborn children. These solutions involve helping women and their children and do not involve violence against anyone.

Well said. Please pray for the family of Dr. Tiller.

From Reason.com:

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) has introduced the Newspaper Revitalization Act, a bill that would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) warns of the "serious consequences for our democracy" if his hometown paper, The Boston Globe, goes belly up. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has publicly argued for an antitrust exemption to save the San Francisco Chronicle, a paper that has long supported her political career. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) recently argued that "If Congress does not act...a major city in the United States will be without a newspaper in the fairly near future."

Washington can give newspapers tax breaks or generous subsides to keep them afloat. There are many ways of extending the life of a terminally-ill by forcing onto life support. But why should the government support an industry that consumers are rejecting?

"Most of those supporting a newspaper bailout were also critical of the media’s behavior in the run-up to the Iraq War," says Reason senior editor Michael Moynihan. "Now imagine the reaction if the very same journalists wrote the very same stories about Iraq in 2002 but were reliant upon the Bush administration for their survival."

Times are hard. A good friend of the Thinklings got laid off from the paper where he was long employed. I don't like to hear about people losing their jobs.

But I'm just wondering what Congress is thinking here. Will we be nationalizing newspapers soon?

Has anyone in Congress ever read this?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Memo to Congress: You can't fix everything. At the moment I'm not sure you can fix anything.

Go away.

Well, credit cards are bad anyway (we don't use 'em, and have no debt except for our mortgage right now. Debt's bad).

But doesn't this seem to be somewhat backwards?

Credit cards have long been a very good deal for people who pay their bills on time and in full. Even as card companies imposed punitive fees and penalties on those late with their payments, the best customers racked up cash-back rewards, frequent-flier miles and other perks in recent years.

Now Congress is moving to limit the penalties on riskier borrowers, who have become a prime source of billions of dollars in fee revenue for the industry. And to make up for lost income, the card companies are going after those people with sterling credit.

. . .

“It will be a different business,” said Edward L. Yingling, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association, which has been lobbying Congress for more lenient legislation on behalf of the nation’s biggest banks. “Those that manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems.”

Here's my favorite part:

“There will be one-size-fits-all pricing, and as a result, you’ll see the industry will be more egalitarian in terms of its revenue base,” said David Robertson, publisher of the Nilson Report, which tracks the credit card business.

People who routinely pay off their credit card balances have been enjoying the equivalent of a free ride, he said, because many have not had to pay an annual fee even as they collect points for air travel and other perks.

“Despite all the terrible things that have been said, you’re making out like a bandit,” he said. “That’s a third of credit card customers, 50 million people who have gotten a great deal.”

Congratulations, all of you who have been prudent and prompt in your credit card payments and personal financial management. Here you thought you were law-abiding citizens. But you're not.

You're bandits.

Sheesh . . .

[H/T The Corner]

Why is flaunting your body in a bikini on national TV not a big deal for evangelical Christians?

Why are people like James Dobson so obsequious to a certain beauty contestant simply because she (rightfully) took a stand against homosexual "marriage," despite the message of superficial beauty and sexuality she communicates to thousands upon thousands of Christian girls?

Welcome to the new Christianity. We've got everything the world has -- bikini-clad babes, rock star musicians, and political rock stars -- plus we get a feel good JESUS who wouldn't dare put a standard of Puritan holiness on us. Thank God.

Lars nails it. I've excerpted parts of what he posted below, but, as they say, go read the whole thing.

It’s perfect Leftist logic—If you act like me, you’re an awful person.

(By the way, this is an argument every victim of abuse is extremely familiar with, which is probably one reason why I react so strongly to it.)

The logic (as I’ve mentioned before) seems to be, “We can do it, because we don’t believe in moral absolutes. But since you do believe in moral absolutes, if you act like us you’re hypocrites. And thus evil. It’s only evil when a hypocrite does it, you see. So we can do anything we want, but you have to obey a higher standard.”

. . .

Take the case of Carrie Prejean, the Miss USA finalist who probably lost the contest because she stated (in a pretty namby-pamby fashion, to be honest) her conviction that marriage should be limited to male-female couples. (Interestingly, pageant officials criticized her for not suppressing her true convictions, in order not to give offense. In other words, she should have been a hypocrite in this case. It’s pretty hard to please the Left.)

Today the news is that somebody came up with some nude or semi-nude photos Miss Prejean posed for a few years back (I haven’t seen them; can’t comment on their tastefulness or sleaze).

There is a message here, and very clear one. Oppose us, and we will deploy vast resources to destroy your reputation. “You’ve got a nice life here. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it.”

We’ve seen it before, and it shows no sign of letting up. Our opponents honestly believe that, because we are all bigoted, ignorant hypocrites, it is not only not wrong, but positively virtuous to destroy us without mercy.

What I haven’t worked out is how to respond to this.

Do we fight fire with fire? Are we even able to do that, in light of our massive inferiority in terms of media support?

Do we take a “turn the other cheek” approach, trusting that the American people, in the long run, are decent, and will repudiate such tactics? (Harry Reid seems to be counting on that, and it really irks me to play into the hands of such as he.) And I don’t believe “do as you would be done by” applies to government matters in general. (If they did, the government couldn’t levy taxes or punish criminals.) But government and politics are different things, so I’m not sure how far to stretch it.

I just don’t know.

I do know I’m getting angry.

Related to my earlier post: a correspondent of John Derbyshire's had this to say regarding the Government pressure being brought to bear (apparently) on some Chrysler investors:

This administration has made it quite clear that they can't be relied upon to honor contracts or legal precedents and if I can't know what the rules are before the game starts then I'm not going to play. Hedge funds aren't like the banks … we haven't failed. We aren't beholden to the taxpayer to make our way. We have contractual and fiduciary obligation which we will honor. People pay us to make them money not to meet a political goal. So Obama had better think long and hard before he tries to bully us like he did the banks, or try to tell us that "he's the only thing between us and the pitchforks."

Also, Geithner and Obama have been saying that they plan on balancing the budget once the crisis is past. The press may believe that twaddle about how he'll do it by "making things more efficient," but we in the hedge fund industry aren't so stupid. We've looked at the numbers and know what he's planning to do. I know dozens of people who are already putting the legal structures in place to move their companies and themselves offshore and away from the grip of the tax man. These are some of the smartest most dynamic people in the world and they'll have no trouble staying ahead of the kids from the short bus over at the IRS.

So unless Obama wants to run out of "other people's money" a lot sooner than he expected, he had better keep some people around to pay the bills. And if he keeps demonizing the productive and saying that it's their responsibility to let him spend their money on the unproductive, then we'll all be gone.

You may think hedge fund guys are evil, but read what this guy says. I've known people in the trading business, and this guy perfectly captured the way they roll.

This is one reason why it's so important to have a Government that doesn't change the rules on a whim.

Specter hints Kemp died of GOP agenda.

[Hat tip: Jonah Goldberg, whose post has a more colorful title than mine does]

I was near a TV the other day when President Obama announced the Chrysler deal. I was not right by the TV, but I heard, or thought I heard, him talking about a group of people who had not been willing to sacrifice. "I do not stand with them," he said.

Having the Government manage bankruptcy proceedings and business plans gives me hives anyway, but this statement seemed a bit . . . well, like something a President normally doesn't say. It turns out that it was an open rebuke to people behaving within the law.

Let's start with this transcript of Detroit’s Frank Beckman’s morning talk show (WJR), from a May 1 interview with bankruptcy attorney Tom Lauria:

Lauria: Let me tell you it’s no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent. That’s a moving target. I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.

Beckman: Was that Perella Weinberg?

Lauria: That was Perella Weinberg.

That's a startling accusation. Granted, it's being made by a lawyer who is trying to gain sympathy for his clients.

The increasingly valuable and independent Jake Tapper reports:

President Obama singled out Lauria's clients for criticism when he announced the Chrysler plan on Thursday.

"While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you some did not," the president said. "In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout. They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none."

Lauria said the president's assertion that his clients weren't willing to make any sacrifice is false. The clients were willing to take 50 cents on the dollar from Chrysler for their debt, he said.

President Obama also said of Lauria's clients, "I don't stand with them. I stand with Chrysler's employees and their families and communities. I stand with Chrysler's management, its dealers, and its suppliers. I stand with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars. I don't stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices."

"He stands my clients up as basically the reason Chrysler is going into bankruptcy," Lauria said. "He wrongly says they're not willing to make any sacrifice. And then he says he does not stand with us."

Lauria said the president saying he doesn't stand with his clients "kind of sounds like 'You're fair game.' In whatever sense. People are scared. They have gotten death treats. Some have been told people are going to come to their houses. God forbid if some nut did something, I'm just wondering how the president would feel."

The Spyglass weighs in:

Regardless of your position on Chrysler, unions, or any of the other parties involved in this mess, that sort of thing isn't good for anybody for very long. The rules need to be the same for everyone, and the same at every point in the process. When the government starts bending them to try to manipulate results—when the process is compromised for the sake of someone's agenda—the system will adjust in a way that will only hurt our economy, and especially those who are most vulnerable.

The thing is, these folks invested a lot of money in an effort to help Chrysler rebound—yes, in the hopes that they would profit off that rebound; our economy doesn't run on altruism—and they did so knowing what the rules were if their efforts succeeded and what they were if Chrysler went down anyway. Let them and others like them get the idea that the government is willing and able to do whatever is necessary to change those rules after the fact in order to skew the results to its liking, and the next time a big company is looking for help (General Motors, anyone? The New York Times?), the money won't be there.

Investors are willing to take the normal risks of business, because those risks are predictable, and they're taken into account in the terms of the contract. If they perceive a significant risk of ex post facto government intervention on behalf of other parties—risks which are neither predictable nor quantifiable—they'll sit on their hands, rather than take the chance that the next kneecap the Obama administration aims at will be theirs; and GM, or whichever company totters next, will go down.

And a commenter on Megan McArdle's blog hits it out of the park:

Government interference, or arbitrary enforcement of the rule of law is a hallmark of bankruptcies in banana republics, and france. When lenders have confidence that the government will enforce bankruptcy laws (ie the rules of the game) will be consistently upheld, they will lend more freely. When lenders fear their contractual rights will be summarily ignored, they will demand equity-like rates of interest, thus stifling economic activity. Credit is a sacred trust.

The point here is not which party is more "deserving" of more or less of a shrunken pie, lazy unions or heartless hedge funds. Lots of folks fundamentally believe the government should do whatever the hell it wants (eg upend absolute priority in bankruptcy) to effect the "greater good", as defined by a self-designated minority of people. But all government policies have a cost, and those same folks like to pretend that those costs don't exist. When the Government flouts the rule of law to fit its preferred special interest groups, that has a real cost.

I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of this in the coming days. We have an economic crisis, a Government with a Democratic supermajority, a charismatic and articulate President who both enjoys high favorable ratings but also has shown no compunction about pushing the Executive power envelope, and a citizenry that feels that the Rule of Law is subservient and expendable when it clashes against Fairness (which is whatever the media defines it to be).

Of course, not everyone sees this as something to be alarmed about. A commenter on The Spyglass called it a "tempest in a (cracked) Republican teapot."

I don't have all the details, and certainly not all the facts. I just have a bad feeling . . .

Thoughts?

Malaria kills over 2,000 people a day.

I think the reason a lot of people are going nutso about swine flu right now is because they think it threatens white Americans.