Click on WORD or PDF below for full content
David Warren says, “dealing with punks is no time to be a liberal.”
In Toronto, on Thursday, I witnessed a little incident of some value to the interpretation of world affairs. It happened on a crowded westbound King Street trolley, trapped at Yonge Street by the early rush hour crowds. (Ottawans may envy any kind of functioning transit service.)
Three young men, whom one might characterize as voluntary members of the underclass from the way they were dressed (expensive ghetto gear), jumped the back door of the trolley, in order to avoid paying fares. It is the sort of thing people just get used to in a decaying society. The drivers have their hands full processing paying customers through the front entrance, and can hardly be expected to guard the rear.
But in this case, the driver more than noticed what was happening, apparently through his rear-view mirror. He shut the front doors, stalled the car, and elbowed his way through the standing passengers to confront his unpaid guests. “I’ve got bad news for you punks,” he declared, loudly. “I am not a liberal.” Upon being told this, they left the car peacefully. Though I should add that, this being Toronto, the passengers looked more astounded by the driver’s declaration than by the punks’ behaviour. …
Christopher Hitchens asks “Why are so many oligarchs, royal families, and special-interest groups giving money to the Clinton Foundation?”
Here is a thought experiment that does not take very much thought. Picture, if you will, Hillary Clinton facing a foreign-policy conundrum. With whom will she discuss it first and most intently: with her president or her husband? (I did tell you that this wouldn’t be difficult.) Here’s another one: Will she be swayed in her foreign-policy decisions by electoral considerations focusing on the year 2012, and, if so, will she be swayed by President Barack Obama’s interests or her own? …
WSJ Editors on the same subject.
These columns have long believed that a President deserves the cabinet members he wants, barring some major dereliction. So if Barack Obama wants to make Hillary and Bill Clinton part of his governing team, that’s his business. We can only hope he understands the Clinton family business he’s taking on.
Take Mr. Clinton’s post-Presidential fund-raising, the scope of which he finally disclosed in late December after years of refusing, and under pressure from the Obama transition. Amid the holidays and economic news, this window on the Clinton political method has received less attention than it deserves. Here is the spectacle of a former President circling the globe to raise at least $492 million over 10 years for his foundation — much of it from assorted rogues, dictators and favor-seekers. We are supposed to believe that none of this — and none of his future fund-raising — will have any influence on Mrs. Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State.
The silence over this is itself remarkable. When Henry Kissinger was invited merely to co-chair the 9/11 Commission, the political left went bonkers about his foreign clients. In this case we have a Secretary of State nominee whose husband may have raised more than $60 million from various Middle East grandees, and Washington reacts with a yawn. Maybe someone will even ask about it at her nomination hearing today.
A Senator should ask, because this has the potential to complicate life for the new President. All the more so because under terms of his agreement with Mr. Obama, Mr. Clinton will be able to keep raising foreign cash as long as the donors send the checks to a Clinton entity other than the “Clinton Global Initiative.” …
P. J. O’Rourke opines on hope and change.
… In the language of politics there is only one translation for the phrase “hope and change,” to wit, “big, fat government.” Mr. Obama, if you’re going to give us big, fat government, you need to be a big, fat politician. You need to be a Tip O’Neill, a Teddy Kennedy, a Richard Daley, a Bill Clinton at the very least. And you don’t seem to be a big, fat anything–literally or otherwise. You seem to be . . . smart and organized. Like Jimmy Carter!
So we may speak without compunction of the failed Obama presidency. What a blessing that it’s a failure. Things are bad enough the way they are. There’s already a huge ongoing government intervention in the economy. Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, “Dad burned dinner, let’s get the dog to cook.” Now the government’s going to take over the auto industry. I can predict the result–a light-weight, compact, sustainable vehicle using alternative energy. When I was a kid we called it a Schwinn. And next in line for political therapy is health care. Voting will cure what ails you. Go to the doctor when you’ve got cancer, and he’ll say, “Don’t worry. Everything will be fine. I’m going to treat your disease by going inside this small, curtained booth and putting an ‘X’ next to a very special name.” …
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on the UAW’s GM legacy.
General Motors lost $10.6 billion in 2006. GM lost another $38.7 billion in 2007, the largest annual loss in automotive history. Through the third quarter of 2008, GM lost another $21.2 billion.
On Sept. 24, 2007, a year during which GM lost an average of $3.2 billion per month, the United Auto Workers launched a national strike against the company, ordering the shutdown of 80 GM plants in the United States. More than 73,000 UAW-represented factory workers walked off the job and hit the picket lines.
The UAW said that GM had failed to address job security issues during negotiations.
“No one wants to see GM go down the tubes,” said picketing Jim Brown. “But we have to keep our standard of living, and GM is going to have to cooperate.”
GM’s labor cost for a factory worker at the time was $71 per hour, with $27 per hour going to current workers and the remainder made up of costs for pensions and health care for retirees. If archaic work rules and other contract mandates reduced productivity at GM’s plants by half, the company’s real labor costs were $142 per hour of work counting retiree costs and $54 per hour for current labor. …
Thomas Sowell does an emergency book review.
This is an emergency book review.
Before you do anything else, make a note to read “The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care” by Sally C. Pipes. It might literally save your life, by checking the political stampede toward a government-controlled medical profession– usually presented politically as “universal health care.”
It is one of the painful signs of our times that millions of people are so easily swayed by rhetoric that they show virtually no interest at all in finding out the hard facts. Any number of other countries already have government-controlled medical professions. Yet few Americans show any interest in what actually happens to medical care in those countries.
Instead, we are being lured into a one-way process– much like entering a Venus fly trap– by the oldest of all confidence rackets, the promise of something for nothing.
Fortunately, Sally C. Pipes is one of the few who has explored the reality of government-controlled medical treatment in Canada and other countries. …
Shorts from National Review.