The difference between Bush and Obama seems to be that Bush never imagined he had the power to go to war on his own authority, whereas President Ladies Tee does.

Although the U.S. focus remains on exerting diplomatic and economic pressure on Syria, the Pentagon and the U.S. Central Command have begun a preliminary internal review of U.S. military capabilities, CNN has learned.

The options are being prepared in the event President Barack Obama were to call for them. Two senior administration officials who spoke about the review to CNN emphasized that U.S. policy for now remains the use of non-military options.

The focus on diplomatic options was underscored by the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in an interview with CNN on Tuesday.

"Before we start talking about military options, we very much want to ensure that we have exhausted all the political, economic and diplomatic means at our disposal," Ambassador Susan Rice said on CNN's “Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.”

The president has also said that the U.S. is working on non-military options first.

I think a coblogger tipped me that Britain was reviewing its own options, and then snarked that Obama would do the same two weeks later.

Well, not two weeks, but later.

He leads from behind, you know.

Posted by: Ace at 03:33 PM | Comments (395)
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

He doesn't say how. I'm not sure he has a plan. But he says he'll find a plan.

n a rare speech on the House floor, Mr. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said the rule is “an unambiguous attack on religious freedom” and said the House's Energy and Commerce Committee will write a bill that would overturn the rule — if Mr. Obama doesn’t rescind it himself first.

“If the president does not reverse the department’s attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend, must,” Mr. Boehner said.

Jay Carney says whatever compromise is fashioned must still wind up covering the abortifacients and birth control. Which is, you know, not a compromise.

The new rules gave a one-year grace period to religiously-affiliated groups to comply, and White House advisers said they will use that time to try to find an accommodation — though they said they will insist that women receive the coverage somehow.

“There are ways to, I think, help resolve this issue that ensures that we provide that important preventive service, that health care coverage to all women, and that tries — in a way that also tries to allay some of these concerns,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday.

By the way, you know what Plan B costs? $20-30 or cheaper.

In order to spare women the costs of having to shell out twenty bucks once or twice a year (and that would be a lot, wouldn't it?), Obama's determined to run roughshod over religious liberties.

And it's not even sparing them the costs, of course. Insurers do not have piles of magic free money. What they pay out must always be a fair amount less than what is paid into them via premiums.

This is just adding an additional cost to premiums, then giving it back (minus administrative costs) to the final client.

It saves no one any money. Women using it are actually just paying for it via their premiums. (Well, women using it are being subsidized by women who have no need for it or refuse to use it; but that's an odd subsidy, isn't it?)

And all for a $20 pill. Something that costs less than a pizza with three toppings.

This is not about money. This is about imposing a Preferred, State-Endorsed Culture on people from the top down.

It's not about saving the end-user that $20 (which is not saved at all, but simply paid in premiums).

It's about forcing the insurer to compromise his own beliefs. It's about co-opting him. It's about using state coercion to pummel him down into conformity.

How many times could the average sexually-active woman need this over the course of a year? Four, five times at most?

Here's a fat $60 er year raise, partially deferred (on the employer's end) by not having to pay for a birth control/abortifacient rider in insurance policies.

You're now self-insuring. You're welcome.

Posted by: Ace at 02:45 PM | Comments (221)
Post contains 513 words, total size 3 kb.

Gleen Grenwald serves a useful purpose for the Obama Left.

He can rant at Obama, and then those on the left can nod their heads and say "I agree," and then go back to supporting Obama to the hilt, contented that they've demonstrated their consistency by nodding their heads for one second.

It's a purgative. By agreeing, your sins are forgiven, and you may then get back to sinning, in the form of worshipping Obama and his/Bush's war policy.

During the Bush years, Guantanamo was the core symbol of right-wing radicalism and what was back then referred to as the “assault on American values and the shredding of our Constitution”: so much so then when Barack Obama ran for President, he featured these issues not as a secondary but as a central plank in his campaign. But now that there is a Democrat in office presiding over Guantanamo and these other polices — rather than a big, bad, scary Republican — all of that has changed, as a new Washington Post/ABC News poll today demonstrates:

The sharpest edges of President ObamaÂ’s counterterrorism policy, including the use of drone aircraft to kill suspected terrorists abroad and keeping open the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have broad public support, including from the left wing of the Democratic Party.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to close the brig at Guantanamo Bay and to change national security policies he criticized as inconsistent with U.S. law and values, has little to fear politically for failing to live up to all of those promises.

The survey shows that 70 percent of respondents approve of Obama’s decision to keep open the prison at Guantanamo Bay. . . . The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed.

Repulsive liberal hypocrisy extends far beyond the issue of Guantanamo. A core plank in the Democratic critique of the Bush/Cheney civil liberties assault was the notion that the President could do whatever he wants, in secret and with no checks, to anyone he accuses without trial of being a Terrorist – even including eavesdropping on their communications or detaining them without due process.

But President Obama has not only done the same thing, but has gone much farther than mere eavesdropping or detention: he has asserted the power even to kill citizens without due process....

Beyond that, Obama has used drones to kill Muslim children and innocent adults by the hundreds.... But that is all perfectly fine with most American liberals now that their PartyÂ’s Leader is doing it....

You get the idea.

There should be a word for "agreeing without actually agreeing." The comments at Salon are "in agreement," in this sort of agreement I mean. If your "agreement" does not include any actual action, you don't really agree with the proposition at all.

I guess there is a word for it already -- hypocrisy, the tribute that vice plays to virtue.

Either they really found these things "repulsive" -- literally, inducing a vomit reflex -- under Bush, or they did not, and were just lying in order to secure political power.

But it cannot be the case that they were literally repulsed by Bush's policies -- driven to hair-tearing anger -- and yet can look past it in Obama, albeit with a meaningless "Tut tut" of weak disapproval.

They were lying then or they're lying now -- and probably both.

Thanks to @slublog.

Posted by: Ace at 01:48 PM | Comments (158)
Post contains 632 words, total size 4 kb.

Obama's trying to campaign against a do-nothing Congress.

But he doesn't mind at all if the Senate does nothing.

Even if it fails to pass a budget for, what, the fourth year in a row?

Posted by: Ace at 01:19 PM | Comments (130)
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

As Adam Carolla would say, "My head is spinning."

The people did Obama "art" on their own dime and own time--

Aaron Allen, for example, created a striking poster, called "Unite the States of America," on candidate Obama’s behalf. The poster shows an Obama silhouette bringing together red and blue spheres meant to represent America’s partisan division. His official bio notes that he “also works on personal art projects, including a poster for the 2008 Obama campaign that was shown in several galleries and publications.”

The ad’s art director, Jimm Lasser, created an entire art exhibit in New York around Nike-style shoes bearing Obama’s image. Another of the creative directors, Michael Tabtabai has used his Twitter account recently to send out the message “Obama x Incredible Hulk. America STRONG!” and linking to an image of an action doll of the president looking like the comic book super hero.

Anyone shocked that dudes working in advertising are super-pro-Obama?

Maybe I'm dumb, but it was only when I read this article and read "It's Halftime in America" again did I really comprehend how pro-Obama this ad is.

Halftime implies half-done, right? If the first four years were the first half, then the next four years are the second half.

This is virtually explicit. (Virtually.) The ad is very nearly expressly calling for a second term for Obama -- the second half -- so he can wrap up his game.

It also completely discounts the first "half's" score, doesn't it? Obama' first "half" stats are abysmal. But if you buy into the metaphor of a presidential term as one-half of an incomplete game, you start to buy into ideas like "fourth quarter comebacks," "Halftime adjustments," and ideas like "we didn't get much traction with our running game but we've tired out the defense and will start benefiting from our first half work in the second half."

I didn't get this. Maybe I'm dumb. (Also, I didn't see the ad at the time.) But it's just now that I realize how nearly explicit the ad is in endorsing staying with Obama for the second half, because, you know, the game isn't decided by the score at the end of the first half, is it? Whole 'nuther half to play, and you can only see if you've won based on the score after that half.

If it were overt, people would tend to reject the message. People don't like attempts at persuasion.

But because it's covert, the basic meme -- "can't judge the outcome of a game based on first half stats" -- has a much better chance of getting suck in people's heads.

Pretty insidious.

Posted by: Ace at 11:27 AM | Comments (326)
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.

It's girly. It's nonthreatening.

It has an attached working chainsaw for melee with zombies.

Posted by: Ace at 10:55 AM | Comments (97)
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

Interesting, but I've got some problems with the study, at least from what I know if it. Which is nothing.

Wanna make money in Hollywood? Release patriotic movies that promote conservative values and do not denigrate Christianity.

For two decades, that has been the message that Movieguide has been pushing, and on Friday when it celebrates its 20-year-anniversary with an awards show airing on The Hallmark Channel, the organization will present a 76-page report designed to back up its assertions.

This yearÂ’s annual report sells for $1,000

Hello!

and the price includes tickets to the Annual Faith & Values Awards Gala at the Universal Hilton Hotel.

...

Movieguide identified 91 movies in 2011 that scored high in “conservative/moral categories” and they earned an average of $59 million apiece. On the other hand, it identified 105 movies that scored high in “liberal/leftist categories,” and each of those titles earned an average of just $11 million.

I think there's definitely something to this, but I just want to note a couple of problems with direct comparisons here.

First, this list has a lot of children's movies on it -- which are big money-makers. A good comparison would omit children's movies entirely and only compare adult-oriented entertainment. The inclusion of children's movies on the money-making list is an unfair advantage for Team Conservative. I think Team Conservative would still win here, but including movies which tend to have very little offensive matter of any type and make big handfulls of cash stacks the deck.

Second, most of the conservative movies on the list are easy entertainments without any bite or tough messaging. (And note: You can have a movie with edgy bite and tough messaging from the conservative side too. The Gibson Passion of the Christ, for example, was hugely divisive and controversial, and tough sledding, as far as watching it.)

I don't see what you can do about this, as far as methodology goes. Just an asterisk to hang on the findings.

I think this is the result of the basic liberal slant of Hollywood, and the basic liberal slant of corporate culture generally.

Yes, corporations have a liberal slant, because corporations seek to mimic the dominant culture in the country as expressed through the media and other trend-setting institutions, and that dominant culture -- at least as relayed through the media -- is liberal.

In this case the media corporations are trying to remain politically correct, in line with the dominant media culture they themselves create, but still. Corporations will tend to adopt a liberal messaging because that messaging is "safest," given that it has the approval of the hegemonic cultural cohort in the country.

Now, the point of my mentioning this is that film-makers will toss in some conservative stuff (or at least avoid divisive liberal messaging) when they're seeking purely to make money. Paycheck movies, basically. When they seek to just make money, they declare a truce (in one movie) in the culture wars and just seek to entertain.

That means the movies that are the "most conservative" will naturally tend to be the biggest money makers, because the films were designed for exactly that purpose.

But what of the edgy, risky films? The ones Hollywood cares a great deal more about, as they do not represent just a business play but an artistic reaching?

Those movies will tend to be liberal-themed. Why? Because in Hollywood it is permissible to fail for the "right reasons," and seeking to push a liberal message is one of those "right reasons."

It would not be acceptable to fail commercially while pushing an edgy, contentious conservative message. That would be a double-failure -- commercial failure, plus the Hollywood cohort despising the film's aims in the first place.

Thus, as a structural matter, its going to be the case that liberal-leaning Hollywood is willing to risk commercial failure on what they consider an ambitious and noble project -- otherwise known as a "liberal themed movie," to them -- while they will not risk that for an ambitious, challenging conservative-themed movie.

Thor (which is on the list of conservative-tilting films for "mature audiences") was a nicely executed genre piece with a good deal of craft to it. No one would mistake it, however, for a profound movie, or an ambitious movie, or a "message" movie.

It was a money-maker, pure and simple, a business play, so Hollywood doesn't mind if it has no "ennobling purpose" like claiming that we're just as bad as the terrorists.

These comparisons will always be skewed by Hollywood's liberal bent -- they will gamble on the liberal film, but not on the conservative one. Anything conservative (or at least non-liberal) will be, inevitably, a safe bet sort of movie.

Now that isn't an absolute rule but it is a strong trend, pushing the money to the conservative-tilted side.

Tough, ambitious, challenging, provocative movies of any bent will tend to make less money than broadly-palatable crowd-pleasers. So it's difficult to get a true apples-to-apples comparison here, as Hollywood rarely makes any movies with a real conservative message, the kind of message that would draw as strong a reaction from liberals as, for example, Hollywood's large number of sexual-deviancy-themed movies provoke in conservatives.

Atlas Shrugged Part 1, for example.

Still, overall, the basic thrust of the study seems correct. It may be hard to get a truly rigorous figure for Average Gross of a Conservative Themed Movie versus Average Gross of a Similarly-Placed Liberal Themed Movie, but the general intuition that you will make more money if you don't deliberately offend 40-50% of your potential audience is demonstrated by the figures available.

It may not be a perfect comparison, but this is really just a case of common sense being backed up by some numbers.

Posted by: Ace at 10:17 AM | Comments (156)
Post contains 979 words, total size 6 kb.

I kind of feel bad for the guy now. "Eli Manning" is now a part of his permanent biography -- any time someone speaks of Tom Brady's undauntable will to win, they will eventually mention "...except for Eli Manning."

Anyway, this is just more piling on.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:46 AM | Comments (141)
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

Keystone in the election?

ArthurK. thinks that will just about do it for Obama.

Chicago could be the worst -- $4.95 per gallon.

Ugh: Obama rebounds in Virginia, topping Romney by four among registered independents (and the rest of the field by greater margins).

I don't know how to get Romney to focus on the main idea that if the public actually is tired of Obama and looking for a change, then the public is tired of Obama and looking for a change -- and it therefore wants to hear a candidate would do things differently.

Posted by: Ace at 09:13 AM | Comments (253)
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

Let's Go There Again

From the WSJ: what I meant, but expressed more competently.

The political furor over President Obama's birth-control mandate continues to grow, even among those for whom contraception poses no moral qualms, and one needn't be a theologian to understand why. The country is being exposed to the raw political control that is the core of the Obama health-care plan, and Americans are seeing clearly for the first time how this will violate pluralism and liberty.

Right. As this thing unfolds and we "find out what is in it," we're going to see that it violates many aspects of our self-determination, not just our religious conscience.

Any one-size-fits-all code in a culturally pluralistic country must violate most everyone's freedom of choice in one way or another, or it would have to have so many exemptions carved out of it that it would eventually not be a uniform code at all, being full of contradictions and unfairness, and therefore unequally prosecuted. See: US Tax Code.

Mr. Obama's allies among Catholic liberals are also professing shock—even the Catholic Health Association's Sister Carol Keehan, who lobbied for ObamaCare, and Notre Dame's Father John Jenkins, who invited Mr. Obama to speak on campus in 2009. But if they now claim they were taken for a ride by the secular left, the truth is that they wanted to be deceived in the name of their grander goal of government-enforced equity. The Catholic left was one of ObamaCare's great enablers.

The Catholic left absolutely did lobby for Obamacare, and they absolutely did agitate for the radical socialist agenda underpinning it.

They only turned against HRC in the early months of 2010 when the rug was pulled out from under them vis-a-vis the conscientious exemption.

In yesterday's post I assumed and therefore also implied that the exemption was meant only for Catholic organizations, but I was in error.

Apparently the bishops (and Catholic organization heads) lobbying for this exemption were intending it would be available to all employers who have moral objections to providing abortifacients, and not just Catholic or other religious organizations (seems unlikely to work as a practical matter, but nevertheless, I was wrong).

In last night's post I also did not think to specify 'Catholic left,' as the WSJ does, which is the proper formulation. That error led to a lot of rancor and hurt feelings from the Catholics who frequent this site.

I absolutely did intend to criticize the Catholic bishops and organizations who pressed for the socialization of health care in this country. I did not intend to criticize Catholicism or Catholics as a whole, which I did not make clear enough. Please accept my sincere apologies for my poor wording and lack of thoughtful expression.

This is a left/right thing. It just so happens that the bishops and clergy referenced in this story are of the left.

If they were not, then the market-based reforms suggested by Republicans would have been more attractive, no?

After all, you don't need any exemptions from an intrusive government mandate, when there is no government mandate violating your freedom of conscience to begin with.

Thanks to Andy for the WSJ link.

Posted by: LauraW at 08:01 AM | Comments (268)
Post contains 539 words, total size 4 kb.