And the Award for Most Sociopathic Sociopath in a Leading Role Goes to...

Sean Penn!

In this category there's rarely a shortage of worthy nominees at the annual awards ceremony of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Sean Penn though has already compiled a body of work worthy of many Lifetime Achievement awards. Between Madonna, Hugo Chavez, the Government of Iran, Raul Castro and Johnny Depp, Penn has had association with more creepy and sleazy people than the whole executive of the federal wing of the Quebec Liberal Party. The convicted wifebeater's bizarre and convoluted speech proved once again that anything intelligent he ever says has been handed to him some time before written in large capital letters:

For those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight,

Those were investors in All the King's Men, Sean.

I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect, and anticipate their great shame, and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support. We’ve got to have equal rights for everyone.

Why is it only the liberals? You never hear normal people making soppyeyed speeches about the need for abstinence-based sex education or halving the capital gains tax.

And there are these last 2 things.

2? There's hope for this night yet.

I’m very, very proud to live in a country that is willing to elect an elegant man President,

An elegant man? Doesn't Lyndon Johnson count? I know that's what I look for in my leaders. You know Barack Obama was praying that Sean didn't say anything too crazy that people might associate with him.

and a country who, for all its toughness, creates courageous artists, and this is in great due respect to all the nominees, creates courageous artists who despite sensitivity that sometimes has brought enormous challenges, Mickey Rourke rises again, and he is my brother

And people said Mickey Rourke was punchdrunk.

There was one powerful consolation for the evening, one so important you should mark it down right now on your calendar for next year. That was the liveblog at Big Hollywood, the conservative entertainment blog started earlier thus year by Andrew Breitbart. As Hollywood deteriorates further into a war between paganism and primitivism, following this live blog is the only thing that will make the Oscars watchable in the future.

The Unbearable Lightness of Obama

I’m still working on what may be my great composition, a set of theses explaining Barack Obama and all the mysteries surrounding him. Is he a hard-line progressive or a closet centrist? Does he really dream of a new post-partisan commitment to consensus or is this just a ruse to sneal behiud the city gates a legion of standard left-liberal politics?

Tony Blankley examines Obama’s early blunders and sets out their possible causes. Obama took the fall for the inept vetting of Cabinet nominees, saying that he “screwed up”.

But from a management perspective, the unanswered question is: How did he "screw up"? Did he actively design the failed vetting process and actively assess the various negative pieces of information and fail to see their significance? Or did he "screw up" by letting others design the failed system and assess the data inflow? The former would show poor substantive judgment. The latter would show he wasn't paying sufficient attention to a presumably vital matter.

Then we have the preening display of signing an executive order closing Gitmo -- not now, but within one year. And what is to be done with those present inhabitants too dangerous or unwanted by other countries to be released, but not susceptible to conviction through the mechanism of the criminal law, which is designed to regulate offenses between members of the same community who have committed themselves to upholding the same set of social values?

Thus, it was breathtaking that at the signing ceremony, President Obama didn't know how -- or even whether -- his executive order was dealing with this central quandary.
President Obama: "And we then provide, uh, the process whereby Guantanamo will be closed, uh, no later than one year from now. We will be, uh. ... Is there a separate, uh, executive order, Greg, with respect to how we're going to dispose of the detainees? Is that, uh, written?"
White House counsel Greg Craig: "We'll set up a process."
To be at the signing ceremony and not know what he was ordering done with the terrorist inmates is a level of ignorance about equivalent to being a groom at the altar in a wedding ceremony and asking who it is you are marrying.

But the critical clues must be found in Obama's handling of his stimulus package. Here is a mystery packed with satifactorily intriguing puzzles. Was Obama's desire to reach a genuine consensus with a substantial number of Republicans real or charade? Was the decision to delegate preparation of the package to Speaker Pelosi and her minions an inevitable byproduct of Obama's newness to office, a sign of irresolution and weakness, or a clever ploy to ensure that his fingerprints would not appear on a package full of social liberalism and plain silliness that was desired by Obama but known by him to be unacceptable to Republicans? FWIW, I believe that Obama's desire for post-partisan consensus, if arrogant and ill-considered, is sincere. It's arrogant because Obama's belief is that everyone should abandon their petty grievances, outworn notions and unthinking allegiances. Republucans and Democrats should sit down and think things through practically, whereupon they will come to the same conclusions that Obama does, which also happen to be the conclusions of standard fossilized progressive ideology 98.7% of the time. Republicans accepting the conclusions in principle are welcome to toss in a few ideas -- for example if they had had a few ludicrous projects for which they desired excessive government funding, those ideas would have been welcome. Everyone then votes for what Obama wants; that's what's called "postpartisan consensus".

Blankley:

I can think of four possible explanations for this almost unprecedented presidential detachment from the decision making of policies the president publicly declared to be vital to the country and his presidency:
1) He is a very, very big-picture man, and he delegates decisions even on the central points of vital issues.
2) For tactical reasons, he decided these matters were not worth using up political chits.
3) He is either hesitant or unskilled at management, and he let matters drift until it seemed too late to intervene personally.
4) Or his personality type leaves him surprisingly uninterested in things that aren't personally about him.

I'll eliminate #2. Tactically this was the perfect time both to make it clear to congressional Democrats that he would be doing the producing and directing on matters important to him, and to make cooperation with him as attractive as possible to Republicans .
There's no doubt truth in #1, but it doesn't explain Obama's non-decisions on the stimulus package. The necessity of insisting on absolute unity of purpose in items in a bipartisan emergency stimulus package is big-picture enough for the most visionary leader to isolate and insist on.
#4 can't be discounted wholly. A man who writes two memoirs and compares himself favourably to Lincoln has an very healthy sense of self-esteem even for a politician. It is this type of personality also which sees itself as rising above the pettiness and self-interest that afflict everyone else.
But I say #3 is the winner. Obama was quite skilful or lucky in selecting a campaign team and setting a campaign tone, but the quantity, urgency and importance of the policy and personnel decisions to be made now overwhelm him.
This should ensure for Americans a very entertaining if perhaps somewhat painful presidency. The President's stated goals of civility, practicality and bipartisanship will be subverted and sabotaged at every stage not only by congressional Democrats but by his own appointees. Obama's rhetoric and style will ensure that his approval rating remains high despite an unending series of unpopular and disastrous policy ventures. Public anger will be continually directed not at the king, but at his counsellors, whose heads will roll regularly in response to repeated failures of judgment, achievement and ethics.

Rod Dreher Working on Discovering Fire

Chief CrunchyCon Rod Dreher likes occasionally to mull over things and make "discoveries" which are utterly obvious to anyone who has thought about social conservatism for more than the last hour or so. He asks whether his readers have ever wondered why the poor and working classes tend to adopt the more conservative forms of religion. Why yes, I wondered about that back when I was an undergraduate and so no doubt has everyone else who has ever had conservative instincts and the slightest interest in political theory or philosophy. I suspect that this manner of approaching this stuff fulfils a didactic function for Rod; for some reason he has and has retained a large number of liberal commenters who have never thought seriously about these things and is trying to break them in gently. Sure enuf there were a few commenters who seemed to be transmogrified by this brilliantly original line of thought.

Rod buries the lede further by launching into a digression about the superior personal appeal of charismatic varieties of religion over liturgical ones to the most poor and oppressed. He finally gets to the answer to the question: the poor and marginalized are drawn to religions with rules and moral structures because they have the most to lose through moral dissoluteness. If you descend into the depths through drugs, promiscuity and self-indulgence, and you are wealthy, dad and mom are always around to subsidize you in university for a few extra years until you can get your head together and straightened out. The poor have no such cushion. If you as a young man get in hock to bookies you can always get dad to bail you out at least one more time before the legbreakers pay you a visit. If you're struggling when starting out in the workplace, dad has contacts; later on if life just hasn't gone the right way you can at least look forward to inheriting the family's property when they pass on to give you one more chance or spree, however you decide. The wealthy and powerful have a larger margin of error.

There are other reasons as well, looking at the question from the obverse side. Why do the wealthy tend towards the liberal forms of religion? Well, what's distinctive about conservative religion? It counsels and demands self-restraint, restraint on one's use of power. Who has the most power to be restrained? The wealthy. Therefore they have the most to give up by adherence to conservative religion, and can be more easily assuaged by liberal religion which puts its restraints on others, demanding they refrain from cutting down trees or contributing to global warming.

Rod cites James Poulos over at the American Scene who, discussing the appeal of the odd new sect known as liberaltarians, refers to the Sex Vote, that segment of "people who are generally willing or even eager to trade away political and economic freedoms for broad (in terms of scope, variety, protection and enforcement) social and cultural freedoms". I think Poulos misunderstands what these people want, though. The cultural and sexual freedoms these people want they already have, and have had without threat for decades now. What they want now is to achieve cultural hegemony for the libertine approach to life and marginalize those who oppose it, through their control of mass media and elite institutions plus the occasional unbaring of the heavy hand through boycotts, firings, and the ministrations of the Human Rights Commission.

So How Much Political Advantage Does $34 Billion Buy, Anyway?

The world moves fast nowadays. What with all these pre-budget announcements, it's now possible to feel buyer's remorse before the transaction has been completed. I've been saying that the Tories had no option but to accept the Keynesian stimulus argument and produce a budget designed to rope in Liberal support. And I stand by that — as I've been saying the Conservative Party of Canada simply afford to hand over power to the Liberals, be stigmatized as the "party that doesn't do anything for the ordinary guy" in hard times, and run the risk of being out of power for 20 years as a result.

It's understandable that a government would act the way that this one has, as successful politicians have a strong survival interest. The Government slashed it's own throat with the economic statement last fall. The instinctive response is to staunch the blood, wipe up the mess, stitch up the wound and apply bandages to the wounds. Today's budget is the result. But is reasonable to ask how much political capital $34 billion buys. Well, it's not really $34 billion; just the natural effects of the downturn are estimated to produce a $12 billion deficit anyway. So what does $22 billion in stimulus/infrastructure/assistance to the unemployed buy, politically?

This package of outcomes isn't all good. There's some discontent within the party; just peruse my fellow Blogging Tories to sense the signs of mutiny in the ranks. Unambiguously Ambidextrous has managed to get these views a place on the front page of the National Post website. I'm disturbed and sad at the total rejection of the party which some conservatives seem to be contemplating. There's a danger of saying of these discontented, "So what. Where are they going to go?" The Conservative Left used to think that regularly, and say that occasionally, wearing a triumphant smirk, and one of the results was the Reform Party of Canada. Conservative activists are principled and often ornery sorts, so organizing them in support of a necessary political compromise is like herding cats. Stephen Harper is going to spend some of the political capital he has accumulated with the conservative base on this. At the same time it can't let it's policies be dictated by people who don't understand that it's necessary to win power to enact any part of the conservative agenda, so it's self-destructive to demand that a government enact all of it.

The arguments from supposed conservative principle aren't definitive here; there's nothing wrong with running deficits in bad times so long as they are paid for with surpluses in the good. That's something we have to insist that government does, when the time comes. And when that time comes it would be nice if we had a conservative government to try to hold accountable, rather than a Liberal one.

There are better arguments against these tactics. They are, like the arguments for this approach, based on politics. The case would be that this $22 billion just doesn't buy any political advantage nearly worth the expenditure. What has this $22 billion plan bought? 6 to 9 months. Things are going to get worse economically this year, maybe a lot worse. Michael Ignatieff can take 6 months, 9 months, more if he thinks it better, to organize himself, to replenish Grit coffers, and then defeat the Government when he thinks the economy is at its lowest point, with every chance of beating the Conservatives. There better be an awful lot of good things done by the Government during the next 6 or 9 months for this Keynesian adventure to be worth it. One might go further and argue that in the current circumstances, no one can know whether it is, in the long term, the better position for the Conservatives to be, next week, in Government, in Opposition, or in the midst of an election campaign. The best political outcome for the Conservatives might be if the Government was defeated, the Governor General refused a dissolution, and the Leader of the Opposition was invited to form a government. Then the anger of Conservative voters at this "undemocratic" activity might energize the base all the way to the next election, whenever it is.

But I think this argument misses a few things. If the Government had publicly renounced Keynesian stimulus theory, and brought in a $12 billion deficit budget, or worse, a budget cutting services and/or raising taxes to produce a balanced budget, make no mistake, it would have been defeated in an election campaign. It would have the wind behind it at the start, being able to denounce the Opposition for forcing an unnecessary election in a time of crisis, delaying any action to resolve it. It could take some advantage of the distaste with which English Canadians regard the entering into a coalition containing the separatists as a key component. But it would face sensationalized MSM coverage of the job losses that are now occurring every day. It would face the public preference for parties promising to do something in midst of a crisis to those proposing nothing. The conservative economists who oppose Keynesian stimulus would be overwhelmed by the MSM coverage of the plurality of economists who support it in some form. It would face the spillover effects of Obamamania in the States, which has created an appetite for change that Michael Ignatieff could take advantage of. Worst of all, it would face an Opposition that would be led by the inexorable logic of its public positions to effectively band together, promising that another Harper minority government would be defeated on the Speech for the Throne and replaced with a government that would introduce a stimulus program, an infrastructure program, and additional aid for the unemployed. And if Stephen Harper couldn't win a majority against Stephane Dion, he can't win a majority government, at least right now, against Michael Ignatieff.

The recession fighting weapons authorized in the budget won't really be worth the $22 billion they cost, marked as they are with all the inefficiencies attached to government endeavours. But they buy the time necessary to stay alive and to craft a strategy that will prevent a Liberal takeover of power that could last for generations. The difference between their actual value to the public and their real value is thus well worth the cost, even if we have to borrow to pay for them.

Welcome, Disabled Workers, to the University of Mars

I've long suspected that government job training programs, especially those forcibly attached to a government subsidy, may be among the most useless and inefficient ways that government uses its money. These programs train people who don't want to be there in skills they aren't really interested in having to help them get jobs that don't exist. Well thanks to the Toronto Star for heaping up evidence for my thesis. It seems that many injured workers have been required by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board as a condition of receiving compensation to enrol in the University of Mars
Let us gather the testimonies of the grateful beneficiaries of the government's concern for their career future:

Carlos Aviles:

"It was a waste of time," he said. "So much money wasted. It's all garbage. The training was inadequate. This is not real school. It's for kids. (But) I have to go there."

Gladys Canelas:

"Someone has to stop this stupid thing," said Canelas, who quit her program in frustration and is now unemployed. "Money, money, money for nothing."

Of course teaching of new skills and skill upgrading for our modern hitech economy is very difficult considering the way our social service budgets are so severely constrained in how much they can spend to l'arn recipients in these marketable new skills. Being able to afford to pay out a mere $33,000 over a 18 months to prepare one for data entry and shelf stocking, or $21,000 to prepare one to be a "customer service clerk" -- how can one expect results when our social service programs are so starved for resources?

You know of course that it would be a lot more effective to let the recipients pick a new trade and an institution to teach it themselves and just give them the money to enroll. But they're much better off deploying the whole long-assembled wisdom of the Government of Ontario in a decision that may determine the whole course of their future life.

I've been thinking of course about the budget. There will be money for job training, Jim Flaherty has said. It's a shibboleth, a panacea, a totem. Not spending money on job training is considered equivalent to saying "We don't care about people losing jobs; they probably deserved it anyway. Let them deliver advertising flyers."

About all we can hope for from the Conservatives is that they take the time and trouble to ensure that their training programs will achieve something, but that's not something I really expect to see. Expect a Star expose of useless new training programs finded in the budget by the conservatives later this year, just about the time that Michael Ignatieff decides that he wants to force an election.

David Frum's NewMajority.com

This week brings the launch of David Frum's new website NewMajority.com. If you haven't read Frum's 2008 book Comeback, the new venture's statement of purpose will leave you in doubt about just what these people are up to. The key words are these which sum up the basic attitude expressed in Comeback:

Our party has now taken two bad beatings in two consecutive cycles. It looks very likely we are heading for a third. It's not a sign of lack of commitment to our party or our movement to acknowledge these hard facts.

Our goal here at NewMajority.com is to renew and reform our Republican party and the conservative philosophy so that we can again earn the confidence of the American people and govern responsibly and effectively. We don't claim to have all the answers. We are sure that we are asking the right questions.

Comeback ruffled some feathers in the conservative aviary. There are three components to the worldview expressed in Comeback; at least two if not three of them challenge the default position, or at least the default for-public-consumption position, of the conservative establishment. First is an assessment of the future prospects of the Republican Party as they appear at the moment. Frum's is bleak. Significant portions of the electorate, portions that are growing, seem to becoming increasingly hostile to the party. Aversion to Republicans by Hispanics, women, suburbanites, the college-educated -- these things are not going to magically melt away. Many of the GOP's signature issues have exhausted their appeal. For example, income tax cuts? Further significant middle class tax cuts are unsustainable economically; almost 40% of Americans pay no income tax at all and have no need of reductions; 80% of American workers now pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.

The second issue is what to about all this. Here's where the participants take off their coats and the brawling begins. Much of the movement believes that all that is needed is to return to true conservative principles, to march as in days of yore behind banners of bold colours not pale pastels, to be the party of Ronald Reagan again. Frum isn't buying it, and neither am I. Ronald Reagan didn't prevail by urging his party to ask "What would Barry Goldwater have said? What would Robert Taft have done?" The retrenchment purists are people whose plan if they could redo the Charge of the Light Brigade would be to try to think of a way to make the horses run faster. Frum urges a full, ruthless, corner to corner and ceiling to floor review of the policies the GOP has been running on. This is where Frum is right, and Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham and the official voices of the conservative movement are wrong. Why do we laugh at the way Democrats acted during the Reagan years? Because they refused to look at and think about their now vote-losing positions and kept on losing as a result, always unwilling to believe that their ideas had been rejected again because the public didn't agree with them. There's a chasm here between those who want to be or at least look thoroughly orthodox and those who want to win elections.

The third component of the approach is a grab bag of new policies and strategic revision of old ones to recapture the public imagination. This isn't the place to go through them. I'll just say that Frum certainly used his imagination. I would never have thought of prison reform as a big vote-winning issue, and a government led "war against obesity" seems likely to be effective only in giving Letterman, Leno and every other comedian in the land a free joke every day of the week. I probably disagree with two-thirds of Frum's policy prescriptions, but that's not the point. I think that he's got the right attitude, the willingness to strip down the whole machine and reevaluate the design of every part, and that's what matters. Since the book Frum has gotten into issues that conservatives never touch such as income equality and the failure of the middle class to gain anything from the income growth of the Bush years, even before the meltdown.

About the future of Frum's new website and movement I have no prediction. I confess to know nothing about Frum's stable of opinioners and journalists or whence they have been rounded up. Frum has closed it up at NR and it looks like he's going to be prolific here so the site will always be worth looking at for that alone. Skimming the titles and summaries of the hefty pile of opinion pieces in the first week there might be some danger that the website become something of a nest of social liberals, malcontents and defeatists. In the worst case scenario Frum could be written off as someone who's "gone over to the liberals", and marginalized and ignored.

But I'm wishing the New Majority good health. A lot of the next 4 years is going to be a defensive trench war. It's nice to have someone thinking about new weapons for when we can go on the offensive again.

Fence and Wall Infrastructure

It seems the greens, the unions, the left interest groups have a terrible problem. Asked to come up for ideas for stuff that the President-elect can blow money on, not even all their ingenuity can help them come up with enough projects that can with any plausibility be considered as economic stimulus ramping up jobs and economic demand in anything like the near future. The greens have looked hard but even they cannot come up with their share of the swag. The governors and mayors don't have enough highways, bridges and tunnels, or even mobster museums and waterslides and to blow on the shovel-ready cash that is soon to be heaped on them.

But I have an idea. Highways, tunnels, and bridges — they create construction jobs, jobs that aren't there because the private sector isn't building anything. Well let's think: what other kinds of things can be constructed? Well...hydro poles maybe. Barns and rail tracks and baseball fields.... Hey fences and walls! Like for example the border fence that would allow the U.S. to regain control of its borders but which the Left say can't be done, among other reasons because it costs a zillion dollars and would take forever to complete. Well those are features, not bugs now. We're in a state of economic emergency now and need stuff to spend money on. Many of the plans have already made and could be proceeded with pedal to the floor once those annoying environmental impact studies are thrown overboard in this time of emergency. Now we can make this a national priority and get construction going 24/7.

And the President-elect wants immigration reform. The whole package won't be ready till next year, if ever, but here's a great start — a sign of good faith to those cynical Republicans who do not believe that Democrats really want border control, despite protestations to the contrary. Obama is said to want 80 Senate votes for this package and serious acceleration of border fencing might bring over a few GOP waverers. And an all-out effort at border control would convince many Republicans that giving illegal immigrants a break is acceptable, that for the first time the promise "this is the last amnesty" would be fulfilled.

There's been dispute in the past about how much a border fence would cost. Some say something like $5 billion, opponents say more like $50 billion. But now who cares? The more the better. Where there's dispute what kind of fence should be built, let's get going on both of them.

Barack Obama says he's in favour of border control. Some people don't believe him. The GOP should jump in with ideas, which Obama has solicited, and with amendments to the stimulus package that get this fence going on a priority basis.

Well if you seriously want construction jobs and stimulus I'm just saying....