53%

We are at 53% of goal in our subscription drive.  We need a boost.   Unless you subscribe, you're only getting a fraction of Urgent Agenda.

FOURTH SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE

Subscriptions are the lifeblood of Urgent Agenda.  Without them, we cannot function.  With them, we're in the fight.

By subscribing you keep Urgent Agenda going.  You also receive The Angel's Corner, our twice-a-week e-mail publication dealing with all kinds of things - politics, show business, even tech stuff.  At The Angel's Corner we also give the very coveted Pompous Fool award, bestowed on those who meet the highest standards of mediocrity.  And at the Angel's Corner forum you can publish your thoughts on anything.

Subscribe for a year, or six months, or donate what you wish.  At the request of readers, we're also launching a family plan.  For little more than a year's subscription, you can have a second sent to someone else - like a kid at school whom you want to save from sinful ideas.

So please subscribe in the column on the right.  Should you ever want to drop your subscription, the unused portion will be refunded with only a few insults and comments about your ancestors.

By the way, you don't need a PayPal account.  When you click on one of our subscription buttons, look toward the bottom of the first screen.  There's a choice for standard credit-card subscriptions. 

You're needed.  I think we are too.

TUESDAY,  JUNE 9,  2009

HEALTH CARE - THE NIGHTMARE - AT 5:50 P.M. ET:  It's sneaking up on us, with very little discussion and very little detailed analysis from the mainstream media, but health care "reform" is high on the Dem agenda.  One possible "model" being looked at is the Canadian system. 

Stop looking.  Right now.

Reader Abigail Revan alerts us to a great piece in the Wall Street Journal, written by a Canadian-born doctor, relating some of the horrors of the Canadian plan:

Yes, everyone in Canada is covered by a "single payer" -- the government. But Canadians wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation in the public system.

The problems were brought home when a relative had difficulty walking. He was in chronic pain. His doctor suggested a referral to a neurologist; an MRI would need to be done, then possibly a referral to another specialist. The wait would have stretched to roughly a year. If surgery was needed, the wait would be months more. Not wanting to stay confined to his house, he had the surgery done in the U.S., at the Mayo Clinic, and paid for it himself.

And...

Only half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards, according to a government study. The physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, with the winners gaining access to the local doc.

I want that system.  I want it desperately.  Don't you?  We'll feel so good about ourselves, participants in a great social adventure.  Oh the equality of mediocrity!

The author of the piece points out that Canada, as well as other countries that adopted socialized medicine, are now allowing some privatization because the utopian system they thought they were installing has failed.  And he concludes:

Americans need to ask a basic question: Why are they rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?

Hmm. 

June 9, 2009   Permalink

DO WE HAVE ROYALTY? - AT 5:08 P.M. ET:  Look, I don't want to be small time about this.  The president and his family are entitled to some time off, and we do understand that there will be some bills charged to us during vacations and travel.  But I do think the Obamas may be abusing the privilege.  Several weeks ago the president took Michelle on a date to New York...because he'd promised to.  There were plenty of places to go in Washington, but it had to be New York.  Cost to taxpayers:  $26,000 for the night.

Now we find that Michelle Obama and the two delightful daughters did not accompany Mr. Obama on his recent trip to the Mideast and Europe, but traveled separately.  Traditionally, when the president travels and the first lady is to be with him, the first lady travels on Air Force One, with the president.

So Michelle and the kids went to Europe, then stayed on after the president went back to Washington.  Michelle traveled around Paris, and is now seeing London.  The New York Daily News reports:

An aide to the First Lady called the travel in London "purely vacation" and told the Daily News that the Obamas are "paying for that themselves."

It was unclear Monday exactly what portion of the entire trip would be paid for by the Obama family. No price tag was available, either.

"The First Lady's office is following all the relevant rules and regulations regarding the reimbursement for travel expenses, as previous administrations have done," the aide said. "It's a military flight."

COMMENT:   What does, "It's a military flight" mean?  Does that mean the Air Force considers this a training mission for the crew of the big Boeing that is taking the first lady around?  What about the expenses for the plane?  And what about all the security, and the hotel and travel expenses for the Secret Service detail?

I think, in the midst of this deep recession, that we're entitled to an accounting.  Again, not to be small, but the White House is supposed to set an example.  It has provided no figures.  This is not the transparency we were promised.

June 9, 2009   Permalink   

RASMUSSEN ON THE ISSUES - AT 10:12 A.M. ET:  Although Rasmussen's daily presidential tracking polls have been erratic recently, and have jumped around, his survey on issues seems to reflect what we're seeing daily in public reaction.  The results:

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on six out of 10 key issues, including the top issue of the economy.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues, while 39% trust Democrats more.

This is the first time in over two years of polling that the GOP has held the advantage on this issue. The parties were close in May, with the Democrats holding a modest 44% to 43% edge. The latest survey was taken just after General Motors announced it was going into bankruptcy as part of a deal brokered by the Obama administration that gives the government majority ownership of the failing automaker.

Voters not affiliated with either party now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues by a two-to-one margin.

And...

For the eighth straight month, Republicans lead on national security. The GOP now holds a 51% to 36% lead on the issue, up from a seven-point lead in May. They also lead on the war in Iraq 45% to 37%, after leading by just two points in May and trailing the Democrats in April.

COMMENT:  Some caveats:  This is one poll, and it's trends over time that will tell the story.  Also, the Democrats have three things working for them:  1) President Obama, who, in an age of celebrity, continues very popular because he is, as they say, a "rock star";  2) The press, still very much in the tank for the left, although there are, as we've reported, some cracks in the armor; 3) The Dem programs are giveaway programs.  When people get cash back, or extra services, they are likely to reward the giver.

Still, the survey is encouraging.  The key question is whether the GOP can build on the momentum.  I don't think it's coincidental that these numbers improved as some Republicans, especially Dick Cheney, started fighting back.  The Democrats are very vulnerable on the issues.  But Republicans must pounce, and keep pouncing...always, at the same time, coming up with alternatives.

June 9, 2009   Permalink

MORE ON THE SINS OF THE PRESS - AT 8:33 A.M. ET:  The late media critic, A.J. Liebling, called it "The Wayward Press."  In an excellent piece at The Politico, journalism teacher Richard Benedetto contrasts the press coverage of the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller by a religious extremist and the murder of an American soldier, on American soil, by a Muslim fanatic:

Here’s how the media played the two stories:

• Murder of abortion doctor on Sunday — front-page news in most major newspapers and a lead story on network TV news shows on Sunday and Monday

• Murder of one Army recruiter and wounding of another on Monday — buried inside the same papers and newscasts on Tuesday

Meanwhile, follow-up stories and columns on the abortion doctor still got bigger play in at least four major newspapers — The Washington Post, USA Today, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal — than the shooting of the soldiers got on its first day.

And...

One might conclude that news editors, the gatekeepers who choose how to play stories, are more attuned or more sympathetic to the views of the liberal left than the conservative right and make news placements accordingly.

Moreover, many news stories, editorials, columns and TV talk shows last week were devoted to trying to place blame for the abortion killing on Christian extremists and conservative commentators who condemned late-term abortions performed by the murdered doctor. There was little similar media finger-pointing at militant Muslims for the shooting of the Army recruiters.

Yeah, we noticed.  The bias continues.  It's protecting President Obama and the left.  But there are some brave journalistic souls, including, surprisingly, some at the AP, who are trying to punch through with the truth.  And The Washington Post has been improving, under its new editorial management.  There's hope, there's hope.

June 9, 2009   Permalink

WERE THEY AT THE SAME DINNER? - AT 7:53 A.M. ET:  This is what drives us crazy about journalism.  Yes, reporters will have different takes on events. That's legitimate.  What's not legitimate is when they come in with their own sets of facts:

Story one, from The Politico:

Ending weeks of she-said, they-said drama, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin turned in a cameo appearance at the gala fundraising dinner for her party's House and Senate candidates in Washington Monday night.

But in spite of all the back-and-forth between her camp and dinner

organizers leading up to the event, Palin's presence went little-noticed.

The Alaska Governor sat next to her husband, Todd Palin, at the table of National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn, but she didn’t make any public remarks.

If she hadn't walked quickly across the stage the outset and if her presence hadn’t been mentioned briefly in the remarks of some of the evening's speakers, it would have been hard to know that she had, in fact, shown up.

Story two, from CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Newt Gingrich was the keynote speaker at Monday night's fundraising dinner for the Senate and House Republican campaign committees, but it was Sarah Palin who stole the show.

The Alaska governor's last-minute appearance at the GOP's biggest fundraiser of the year ended 24 hours of speculation that the she might skip the event. A late attempt to have her speak at the dinner fell through when organizers feared she might upstage Gingrich, the onetime House speaker.

Hours before the event was slated to begin, an aide to Palin would not confirm that she would be attending. But when Palin and her husband, Todd, sauntered across the stage with Gingrich and his wife, Callista, shortly before the program commenced, their appearance was met with cheers from the audience of 2,000 party loyalists.

And...

Palin did not speak at the event, but during a break in the program for dinner, Republicans clustered around the former vice presidential nominee's table near the front of the ballroom, eager to meet the governor and pose for pictures.

It was the only table in the vast ballroom that had a crowd gathered around it -- and despite their distance from Palin's table, multiple television cameras kept their lenses trained on the governor for much of the night.

COMMENT:  From everything else I've read, the second story is accurate.  Sarah got a huge ovation, and the main speakers made sure to mention her.  As far as the first story is concerned, editors might have a chat with the reporter.

June 9, 2009   Permalink

WHAT A DIFFERENCE - AT 7:41 A.M. ET:  Contrast this, please, with our treatment of North Korea.  From the Israeli press:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes that U.S. President Barack Obama wants a confrontation with Israel, based on Obama's speech in Cairo last week, Netanyahu's confidants say.

In Netanyahu's opinion, the Americans believe an open controversy with Israel would serve the Obama administration's main objective of improving U.S. relations with the Arab world, the aides say.

In his speech, Obama called for a "new beginning" in relations between America and Islam, and spoke at length about the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Advertisement

He demanded that Israel recognize the Palestinians' right to a state and freeze construction in the West Bank settlements.

COMMENT:  I'm inclined to agree, for these reasons:  First, this president has shown a certain nastiness toward our allies - witness Britain, Canada, and Germany.  Second, former Congressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana, one of Obama's key advisers, pretty much announced the confrontation in a statement several months ago, when he said, "Initiatives are underway that show the United States is going to have some major differences with Israel."  

Hamilton, who previously wanted us to give up in Iraq, now wants greater distance between the U.S. and Israel.  If you want to know the full range of his views, which are profoundly discouraging, see Ed Lasky's superbly researched piece on Hamilton at American Thinker.  It's here. 

June 9, 2009   Permalink

BULLIES BULLY WHEN NO ONE STOPS THEM - AT 7:22 A.M. ET:  North Korea continues its bluster, but this is a first.  From Fox:

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea said Tuesday it would use nuclear weapons in a "merciless offensive" if provoked — its latest bellicose rhetoric apparently aimed at deterring any international punishment for its recent atomic test blast.

Pyongyang raised tensions a notch by reviving its rhetoric in a commentary in the state-run Minju Joson newspaper Tuesday.

"Our nuclear deterrent will be a strong defensive means ... as well as a merciless offensive means to deal a just retaliatory strike to those who touch the country's dignity and sovereignty even a bit," said the commentary, carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

It appeared to be the first time that North Korea referred to its nuclear arsenal as "offensive" in nature. Pyongyang has long claimed that its nuclear weapons program is a deterrent and only for self-defense against what it calls U.S. attempts to invade it.

COMMENT:  Of course, North Korea now holds two American hostages, those reporters just convicted on trumped-up spy charges.  Our response?  So far, just words, and an assurance from our ineffective secretary of state, who never forgets for one minute that she's a lawyer, that we're working all channels to secure the release of our citizens.

That is nonsense.  If North Korea wanted to release them, it would release them.  They will be released when North Korea gets something in return.  We are losing whatever fight we've been waging against North Korea, and Americans had better understand that.

June 9, 2009   Permalink

MONDAY,  JUNE 8,  2009

ANYBODY IN WASHINGTON INTERESTED? - AT 8:46 P.M. ET: 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Gas prices continue to surge nationwide, and are now up more than 27% in the past seven and a half weeks.

The average cost of a gallon of regular gasoline rose slightly Sunday to $2.613, from $2.606 according to motorist group AAA. This is the fortieth consecutive daily increase in the price of gas. In just the past week, prices have increased more than 4%.

COMMENT:  This can have a devastating effect on any economic recovery, and put inflationary pressures on the economy.  Yet, there seems very little interest in Washington or in the mainstream media.  Of course, there's a whole element in the capital that thinks higher gas prices are a good thing - forcing us into alternative fuels.  That's a convenient intellectual argument, but of course it ignores the financial pressures on families.  But families don't rank too high in the calculations of the presumed intellectual classes.

June 8, 2009   Permalink

WHY, IT'S JUST ANOTHER CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE - AT 8:12 P.M. ET:  From Fox News:

A Muslim leader invited by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to participate in a conference call after President Obama's speech in Cairo last week once told a crowd that "the jihad way is the way to liberate your land."

Esam Omeish, a surgeon and community leader who is running for Virginia state assemblyman, made the statements in 2000 at pro-Palestinian rally where he spoke out against Israel and urged Muslims to support the Palestinian liberation movement.

"We the Muslims of the Washington Metropolitan area are here today in sub-freezing temperatures to tell our brothers and sisters in (Palestine) that you have learned the way, that you have known that the jihad way is the way to liberate your land," Omeish said, just three months into the Al-Aqsa uprising that would claim over a thousand lives through Palestinian terrorist attacks.

COMMENT:  Where did Hillary Clinton get his name?  That's the key to clearing out the dry rot in our government that is always promoting these nutbags.

June 8, 2009   Permalink

THE EXCUSE MACHINE IN MOTION, AND WELL OILED - AT 6:26 P.M. ET:  Even the AP, whose fronting for Obama has been choice, is beginning to get uneasy:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama assured the nation his recovery plan was on track Monday, scrambling to calm Americans unnerved by unemployment rates still persistently rising nearly four months after he signed the biggest economic stimulus in history.

Obama admitted his own dissatisfaction with the progress but said his administration would ramp up stimulus spending in the coming months. The White House acknowledged it has spent only $44 billion, or 5 percent, of the $787 billion stimulus, but that total has always been expected to rise sharply this summer.

''Now we're in a position to really accelerate,'' Obama said.

I certainly hope so.  But get this, from AP:

Neither the acceleration nor the jobs goal are new. Both represent a White House repackaging of promises and projects to blunt criticism that the effects haven't been worth the historic price tag. And the job estimate is so murky, it can never be verified.

COMMENT:  It is always so nice to see actual journalism.  We cherish each one of these rare moments.  If the economy doesn't show real improvement, and if the president cannot show how he will tame spending and debt, and his foreign policy tanks, the 2010 midterm elections can be as exciting as the one last year.  But not in ways that the Dems anticipate.

June 8, 2009   Permalink

IT IS IMPORTANT TO IGNORE THIS - AT 6:07 P.M. ET:  A weather report:

If it seemed cold to you in Green Bay on Saturday, it was.

The high temperature for the day, reached at 9:50 a.m., was 52. That set a record for the lowest high temperature for June 6, according to the National Weather Service office in Ashwaubenon.

The old mark was 53, set in 1943.

Similar records were set across Wisconsin today. Manitowoc's high was 54, breaking the record of 56 set in 1935. In central Wisconsin, records were set in Stevens Point, Wisconsin Rapids, Marshfield and Merrill, all breaking marks set in 1935.

COMMENT:  Obviously, this is a corrupt report influenced by the right wing, the oil companies, and disgruntled Chrysler dealers.  Actually, it's hot outside, and, unless we spent trillions under the direction of Al Gore, we will all perish in great floods and locusts, and our children will throw away our pictures.  Just remember that.

June 8, 2009   Permalink

QUESTION FROM SILVIO - AT 9:16 A.M. ET:  It's a pleasure for me to appear periodically on Silvio Canto's Blogtalkradio show, originating in Dallas.  I appeared last week.  Should you wish, you can hear it here.  Just go to the Blogtalkradio box on the left of the site.

Now Silvio passes on to me a question from one of his listeners in Colombia:  How can Barack Obama get 78% of the so-called "Jewish vote"?

The question is undoubtedly prompted by what many perceive to be Obama's less-than-enthusiastic support for Israel and his association, in the past, with some religious and academic figures widely regarded as hostile to Israel, or even anti-Semitic.

The question goes right to the heart of American ethnic politics, now more commonly called identity politics.  Different ethnic groups, at various times in their history, do have an affinity for one party or the other.  At one time the "Catholic vote," especially in large cities, was reliably Democratic.  Not so much any more.  And the "black vote," before the 1930s, was actually Republican, a reflection of the affinity of blacks for "the party of Lincoln."

The Jewish vote is more heavily Democratic than that of any other ethnic group except blacks.  That may be changing slowly among younger Jews, but the statistic remains valid.  The affinity is based on these things:  1) All American Jews came from immigrant populations.  In the "old countries" it was the liberals, the leftists, who were more likely to protect Jews or at least leave them alone.  That is not true today, but beliefs die hard;  2) American Jews are among the most educated groups in the world, and the general liberalism of universities has its effect, if, in our view here, a pernicious one;  3) Jews associate the Democratic Party with the founding of Israel.  If it weren't for Harry Truman's recognition of Israel, against the advice of the State Department crowd, Israel might never have survived.  Again, that is the past.  Today, the Republican Party is more supportive of Israel than is the Democratic Party, but those old traditions are stubborn; 4)  Jews tend to be wary of evangelical Christians, even though they are fierce defenders of Israel.  Historically, evangelical Christians sought to convert Jews.  I think the Jewish fear is foolish and behind-the-times, and is far from universal, but it persists in some Jewish circles.  Many Jews see evangelicals as part of the GOP base.  5) All Jews in the Senate are Democrats, and all Jews but one in the House are Democrats.  This has its effect; 6)  Historically, Republicans were awkward, slow, or indifferent in their outreach to Jews and other minorities;  7)  Even though the civil-rights movement has a strong anti-Semitic element, Jews still identify with it, recalling their own period of being discriminated against.  So voting for Obama fit in with their history;  8) Culturally, Jews tend to be urban or suburban, and that's where the Dems are.

There are, of course, prominent Jewish Republicans, and Joe Lieberman is almost there.  And the Jewish vote can be switched, which would have a great effect on the overall vote in some of our largest states.  Forty percent of the Jewish vote went for Eisenhower in 1952, but Republicans failed to exploit it.  And 39% of the Jewish vote went for Reagan in 1980.  Again, Republicans failed to exploit it.  Reagan, unfortunately, was followed by Bush 41, who was antagonistic to Israel.  In 1992 Bush got 11% of the Jewish vote.

People ask how Jewish voters could reject George W. Bush, possibly the greatest friend Israel, and the Jewish community, ever had in the White House.  It's baffling, and was wrongheaded in my view.  It was equally wrongheaded for Jews to reject John McCain, a true friend, in favor of Obama, whose record on Israel was vague.  (In fairness, though, Obama has always had a close relationship with the Jewish community of Chicago.)

As I said, voting habits die hard, especially when they're reinforced by universities and by the Republican Party's often awkward outreach.  But habits, I'm firmly convinced, can be changed.  If Obama persists in his current foreign-policy course, we may see some change we truly can believe in.

June 8, 2009   Permalink 

SOMEONE NOTICED - AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  Well, maybe the new diplomacy practiced by the Obamans - read that appeasement with a slicker face - won't allow for the use of the D-word, but it's sometimes unavoidable.  Joel Brinkley, formerly of the New York Times, and now teaching at Stanford, hurls the epithet at Hugo Chavez, and throws in Hosni Mubarak for good measure, in a piece for the McClatchy-Tribune News Service:

Just as oil-rich Venezuela sinks deeper into debt, Hugo Chavez, its flamboyant and megalomaniacal president, has crossed the line and can now quite accurately be called a dictator.

A rush of new orders and decrees in recent days is silencing critics, neutering political opponents, shutting down the last of Venezuela's independent media and purging the military of all but the most sycophantic officers.

Chavez's behavior is reminiscent of President Hosni Mubarak's heavy-handed approach in Egypt. About all that's missing is the political prisoners. But, like Mubarak, Chavez does not hesitate to attack his critics with utterly nonsensical allegations, apparently without the slightest care about how ridiculous it looks.

In Egypt last week, opposition politician Ayman Nour, just out of prison, announced that he would run for president again. As he left home the very next day, a man waiting for him on a motorcycle threw a fire bomb in his face. We had nothing to do with it, the government averred.

COMMENT:  I don't know what Brinkley's politics are.  He's always struck me as a very sane and careful reporter.  But I am starting to sense, in the stories I research each day, a bit of a pushback by some in the media against the sometimes adolescent tone of this administration's foreign policy.  Maybe some journalists are beginning to confront reality.  I hope they're aware of the party invitations it may cost them.

June 8, 2009   Permalink

VULGARITY - AT 8:06 A.M. ET:  We are back to the Obama-as-Divine scenario.  A French restaurateur said, after seeing Obama in Paris, that he had seen the Lord.  Newsweek writer Evan Thomas, who really should know better, described Obama this way:  "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."  He said this to Chris Matthews on TV.  I'm sure Chris felt a tingle go up his leg...again.

Wonderful Renee Nielsen, who did that superb reporting from Mumbai during the terror attack there some months ago, and which we were privileged to print, makes this great observation on my new Facebook page:

If Obama is God, why isn't there an outcry over the separation of church and state since "He's" running the government now? I'm being overly sarcastic, but for those who've not paid attention to the left/media's crucifying (pun intended) of Bush the last eight years, this pathetic Obama worship is downright creepy. Journalism is dead in the MSM.

COMMENT:  You know, I never thought of that.  If Obama is Divine, we may have a First Amendment issue in the White House.  I say, where is the ACLU when we need it?  Maybe we should all write to the organization demanding a probe into this outrageous assault on our religious sensibilities. 

Just don't wait for an answer.

June 8, 2009   Permalink 

NORTH KOREA, UNPUNISHED, SHOWS ITS CRUELTY - AT 7:26 A.M. ET:

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea on Monday sentenced two American journalists to 12 years of hard labor in a case widely seen as a test of how far the isolated Communist state was willing to take its confrontation with the United States.

The Central Court, the North’s highest court, held the trial of the two Americans, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, from Thursday to Monday and convicted them of “committing hostilities against the Korean nation and illegal entry,” the North’s official news agency, KCNA, said in a report monitored in Seoul.

COMMENT:  When a country acts as North Korea has, and there are no consequences, this is what happens.  Now the foreign-policy "sophisticates" will undoubtedly rush to microphones to tell us that these women are "bargaining chips," and releasing them now becomes a "delicate matter."  I'm sure that will thrill them and their families...and their country.

The New York Times reports this:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration signaled Sunday that it was seeking a way to interdict, possibly with China’s help, North Korean sea and air shipments suspected of carrying weapons or nuclear technology.

The administration also said it was examining whether there was a legal basis to reverse former President George W. Bush’s decision last year to remove the North from a list of states that sponsor terrorism.

Oh, they must be shaking in North Korea.  More "seeking."  More "examining."  In the White House the pants knees are getting a shine from all that kneeling, as the policy wonks pray that Americans will forget the latest outrage in two days.

North Korea apparently believes it can do anything it wishes, with the White House occupied by The One.  It's time for The One to prove North Korea wrong, but I fear he won't, that once again we'll make a "tough but positive" speech at the UN.  And now North Korea has American hostages, who can be threatened with death.

As Laurel and Hardy used to say, a fine mess.  And it can't be blamed on Bush, although the attempt will be made.

Time for results.

June 8, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY, MAYBE OF THE YEAR - AT 7:14 A.M. ET:  A distinguished academic alerts us to this quote from George Orwell's "1984," as used in Andrew Stuttaford's piece in the Weekly Standard:

The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians.

Our academic asks, "Hmmm . . . are we there yet?"

COMMENT:  If we're not there, we're arriving at the station.  And it's a pretty frightening prospect.  Harry Truman once said that you can't tell an expert anything because then he's not an expert anymore. 

We are developing an aristocracy of "expertise," but expertise, especially when it is the product of our educational system, often comes with a slant, an ideological package.  And "experts" often turn out to be either wrong, or their opinions given disproportional weight. 

True leaders know how to employ an intellectual aristocracy, yet keep it at a distance.  Do we have a true leader today? 

I'll add another hmmm...

June 8, 2009   Permalink