I Just Wanted Everyone to Know...

...that Edward Said and Noam Chomsky may be seriously deluded in their moral relativism on American foreign policy, but it's not their fault. They're just high in anti-occidents.

Don't worry, that will be the only way-too-obscure pun I'll try for quite a while. I hope I haven't violated the Geneva Conventions.

Official English

From tonight's Democratic debate in New Hampshire, candidates were asked about their position on English as America's official language:


To a question on whether English should be the official language in the United States, only former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel raised his hand in the affirmative.

But Obama protested the question itself, calling it “the kind of question that was designed precisely to divide us.” He said such questions “do a disservice to the American people.”

Actually it's the other way around. One of the fundamentals of a united society is a common language, and we don't have that everywhere in the country. Yes, this has been true with immigrant communities in the past, but those were times when America assimilated its population. We don't nearly so much anymore, having at times taken the admirable goal of diversity too far.

I've been surprised at how impressed I've been with Obama in this race. He's more than charismatic, intelligent, articulate and optimistic. He's also measured, nuanced and more centrist than advertised. But on this, I think he's missing the point.

Senator Dodd in the same debate said that we should be encouraging our children to learn other languages, not talking about English as being official. How are those two things mutually exclusive? Should we not be doing both?

Grade A Turnover?

I am not nearly qualified enough to say, but I'll cite another post from Steve Clemons at the Washington Note, who is positively exultant about the more recent appointments to spots at Defense, State, intelligence, and others. I've been seeing this sort of thing here and there for a while. If it's true, wonderful, but it'll still end up being too little, too late.

Just Because I Don't Care Doesn't Mean I Don't Understand

ESPN Radio's Steve Levy reported a few minutes ago that there are a grand total of four major non-Southern California American newspapers covering the NHL's Stanley Cup Finals. The NHL has long been a distant fourth behind the MLB, NFL and NBA, but isn't this a bit much?

Does anyone care anymore? Professional hockey has become like boxing, except there's no Bert Sugar who I'd listen to for hours even when I don't know what the heck he's talking about.

Perhaps on July 4th Would Be a Good Time

Politico's Craig Shirley posts this question:

In order to save its ideology, should the conservative movement declare its independence from the Bush administration and the GOP?

Um...yes? Well, at least to the first part. How much evidence do conservatives need that Bush has done a terrible job?

He's not a Republican in Name Only, because the party has never been made up of only conservatives. Shirley asks rhetorically:

Some may argue a breakup is premature, citing President Bush’s prosecution of the war on terror, enactment of tax cuts and the appointments of Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

Let's not forget Bush has solid conservative credentials on some things, mostly social issues and tax cuts. But cutting taxes while simultaneously increasing spending significantly is a disastrous combination, and not conservative. It was a flaw Ronald Reagan shared, by the way, though not to Bush's degree.

It would be electoral suicide for most Republicans to not divorce themselves from Bush, and I'm surprised it hasn't been more noticeable. And though I don't agree that a simple back-to-basics approach to conservatism is the right answer for the party, if the GOP doesn't drastically change how it operates, it is doomed for a sustained period of relative obscurity.

Revolution or Recommitment?

David Brooks is good today as usual, viewing the Republican field on a continuum of revolution vs. recommitment:

[Fred] Thompson thus becomes one pole in the debate now roiling the G.O.P. Nobody is running as the continuation of Bush. The big question now is: should the party go back to the basics or should it jump forward and transform itself into something new? Thompson articulates the back-to-basics view in its purest form. Newt Gingrich articulates the transformational view in its purest form. The other candidates are a mishmash in between.

If I were a political consultant I would tell my candidate to play up Thompson’s back-to-basics theme. This is a traumatized party, not in the mood for anything risky and new. But over the long run, back to basics is no solution because it doesn’t produce a positive agenda for today’s problems.

In between is the right place to be on this one because there isn't a simple answer on where the GOP needs to head. It must find its center again on fundamentals like competent and efficient government, personal responsibility, and a strong, multi-faceted foreign policy. But in many other ways, it must find a coherent message for change, one that for example embraces environmentalism, de-emphasizes religious dogma, and adapts to the drastic changes to the social and economic landscape of the last 20+ years.

In a practical sense, Brooks is probably right on in recommending a candidate preach "back to basics," but govern transformationally. It may not be very inspirational, but make no mistake, the party must reinvent itself.