Quick Hits

A couple of quick items:

• So President Obama appears on the Tonight Show this evening with Jay Leno. I had a brief exchange yesterday with a friend wondering aloud if any other president has ever enjoyed such celebrity status. She mentioned JFK, but even then, he still seemed like a politician first, right? I guess I don't have any of my own primary knowledge to base this off of, but Obama feels like he enjoys an incredible amount of rock star status in today's America. Did people swoon over JFK the way they do with Barack? Did they look at JFK as a savior like so many people are today with Obama? I'm not sure...
• The House passed a 90% tax on the bonuses that AIG executives will be receiving. I read somewhere that many of those executives signed up for the bonuses with the understanding that the bonuses would supplant the salary that they would normally be receiving, so some of them agreed to a $1 annual salary as a condition for receiving the bonus instead. But that deviates from my question...what does the demonization of the business sector do to future entrepreneurs and businessmen? They are the ones who drive our economy, that inspire wealth creation. If people see the way they're being treated, do they flee the industry? Maybe we lose business to other countries, but do we lose their acumen to becoming school teachers, artists, and the like? Is that an overreaction to the most recent developments? And not that it's a bad thing for these very capable people to go into the arts, education, etc., but it's also not a bad thing in the least for them to pursue business. Where would we be without Henry Ford? Bill Gates? Steve Jobs? America needs commercial enterprise. Like it says in that David Brooks article I posted yesterday, the entrepreneurial spirit is what drives the American dream. At what point do all of these people who make the world's motor run decide that they have had enough? And what happens to the rest of us who depend on them?
• Related to the last point...wanna know what search term commonly leads readers to my blog? especially in the last couple months...John Galt's Oath -
  

  I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

• Will the Lakers please take the rest of this regular season seriously and secure home advantage throughout?
• This is Jay Nordlinger's column from today and I loved this part he mentions about former President Bush, and the additional insight Jay provides:
  

  Former president George W. Bush — I hate writing those words as much as his foes love them — gave a speech in Calgary, Alberta. He said, “I love my country a lot more than I love politics.” And “I think it is essential that he be helped in office.” The “he” is President Obama.
  
  Well, that was the posture of Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and all those folks during GWB’s own years, right? (For a brief discussion of Dick Cheney’s recent interview on CNN, consult yesterday’s Impromptus.)
  
  *Let me toss you an Associated Press report: “The Obama administration said Friday that it is abandoning one of President George W. Bush’s key phrases in the war on terrorism: enemy combatant. But that won’t change much for the detainees at the U.S. naval base in Cuba — Obama still asserts the military’s authority to hold them.”
  
  One of the curses of the age, I think, is euphemism. This is part of the Oprahfication of America (to use a shorthand). Some euphemisms are relatively harmless. I mean, if you want to call the physically handicapped “differently abled,” fine, fine. But some things are important to describe straight-out — such as enemy combatants. Language can either clarify or murk up. And I believe that the Obama people — and modern liberals at large — are great murkers-up.
  
  They say that Obama is a great communicator, and that George W. Bush was a poor one. I rather like the way Bush communicated, frankly. He communicated to me just fine — but I, of course, am not the average voter (or journalist). One helpful thing about Bush’s communication: You knew where he stood, what he meant. There was very little “hope/change” BS.
  
  And he did not try to fudge the fact that America and freedom, like it or not, have enemies.

  Is Jay not always spot on with his observations? If he were taking on pupils, I would be the first in line. I admire him so much. And President Bush, as well. I read the MSN article about that speech, and it's uncommon the graciousness that he exudes in spite of all the flak that he gets from the media at large. Not sure that it's the right thing to do, but Bush stated that Obama deserves his silence. What an amazing gesture and show of support and solidarity with our nation's leader, is it not? keep in mind two other former presidents who cannot get enough of their own spotlight at whatever expense necessary, i.e. Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter. What about the other living former president, GHW Bush? Remarkably reticent. I don't care what any of you say about the Bush family, for all of their flaws, they are a classy family who have contributed so much to this country. Hopefully Jeb Bush will pursue the Florida Senate seat in the next election. We should only be so lucky...
• Do yourself a favor and hit that link for Jay's Impromptu's article. There it is again. I'm almost inclined to post every snippet that he posits on here, but I'll let you seek it out yourself. Today's is especially good. One last item from me that mentions:

  A friend of mine e-mailed to me a letter-to-the-editor he wrote:

  In the episode “Woody Gets an Election,” from the eleventh season of Cheers, simpleton Woody Boyd receives some advice from Frasier Crane. Frasier suggests that even an awful candidate can receive a meaningful percentage of an election’s votes simply by mouthing empty platitudes, such as “change.” “Say the word ‘change’ a lot,” says Frasier. Embracing this advice, Woody goes on to win the election.

  A tried-and-true technique!