Jane Austin on Being a Gentleman

A college classroom discussing literature, sometime earlier this spring:

"Just the other day, when we were discussing Darcy’s first proposal and Elizabeth’s adamant refusal, a bright young man raised his hand and said he had a question for a particular young lady in the class. He looked at her in all seriousness and said “Ashley, in light of your beauty and amiability, would you be so kind as to accompany me to the Liberty Ball?” Several moments of stunned silence followed as the rest of us tried to discern if this was a joke or a legitimate invitation to the spring formal. The young man held his gaze with steady expectation, and in perfect Jane Austen fashion the young lady blushed. And being no less equal to the occasion than an Austen character, she smiled demurely and remarked .... "

I stumbled across this piece by Mark Mitchell written back in April, and loved it:

Austen’s gentlemen (I’m thinking especially of Darcy here) understand the call of duty; they are committed to family, reputation, propriety, and self-control. To be sure, Darcy takes himself quite seriously, but aren’t these pursuits serious by nature? To neglect one’s duty, to be careless of one’s family and reputation, to ignore the bounds of propriety and to indulge the appetites without restraint are not the actions of a gentleman. They represent, conversely, the behavior of a boor. Or, perhaps equally fitting, they are the actions of a male who has no sense of what it means to be a man. Such characters may be Guys or Peter Pans but they are not men and surely not gentlemen.

No indeed.

Juan Williams in a Tizzy

Following the President's awkward handling of our ally Israel, and his attempted bullying her Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Juan Williams went off on the Fox News Sunday Panel. Williams chose to take the press conference address by the two national leaders out of context, ignoring Obama's strong arming of the Israelis, claiming that the President just wanted to change the dynamic and show that Israel is aggressive and affirmative in saying we want peace. Not that it was the president's place to say what Israel was going to do or say next, nevertheless it was Netanyahu that raised Juan's ire:

"It's unbelievable to me... that he would have the arrogance to come in the Oval office and lecture an American president? I think that's way out of line!"

Arrogance?! Get a grip, Juan. Who's arrogant? Yeah, okay then.

Paul Gigot surmised that Netanyahu felt sand-bagged by Obama, and the statement made by the Administration made no sense at all in terms of the current negotiations. It simply stuck a thumb in the eye of an ally. Former Democrat Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana saw it simply as a question of nuance (of course). Liz Cheney continued to impress, pointing out that there is no response on the part of the US to the Palestinians unilaterally attempting to enter into the United Nations. Instead, the White House chose the occasion to try to set the agenda for Israel. It didn't fly.

Meanwhile the White House is passing out this tripe “What, what.. this is simply the policy the United States has held for years”. Yeah, well then why is Barry so grim looking when he is informed it’s a no go? Why does he look so damn surprised? Was it Israel that made a major speech the day before the conference that hemmed in the US position? No?! Listen, Jack, don’t piss in my ear and tell me its raining.

This is the same kind of crap he is always pulling. Invite the Supreme Court to sit in on your speech to the nation, then distort their rulings and insult their integrity. Bring the drilling experts in, then make a public statement they in no way agreed to, and pass it off in front of the press so they can’t recover. Invite Paul Ryan to sit up front and center following your talks on the budget, then accuse him in a joint session of starving old people and killing babies.

This time it blew up in his face, and if Juan Williams thinks its arrogant for Netanyahu to challenge the president by reciting the known history and describing the reality of the situation, then tough bagels, Juan. The President deserved what he got and more. He is not acting “presidential”, has not yet acted in any manner other than as a thuggish embarrassment to the nation, and it’s about time he faced someone who isn’t intimidated.

Benjamin Netanyahu has been in tight situations, high pressure situations where lives were on the line, and no one was patting him on the back and calling him gutsy for coming in off the golf course to watch a video feed of the guys he placed in harms way. He’s been in harm’s way himself, and that long dark stare doesn’t impress him.

Riffing on Fearless Leader

"I only want what's fair"

What would I do... what would I do, if it wasn't for my conservative buddies in the blogosphere. Here's a great riff from Dan Friedman over at Andrew Brietbart's Big Peace:

"Speaking to reporters accompanying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his long flight to the United States tonight, Netanyahu spoke of the injustice and hardship Mexicans have endured since American forces annexed Texas in 1845. “Tens of thousands of ordinary Mexicans were driven out of their homes – the only homes they had known for centuries – and forced to live in poverty and squalor south of the border imposed by American aggression,” Netanyahu said. “The Israeli and Mexican people agree on this: This festering wound will never heal until America takes bold steps to return to the internationally accepted lines of 1845. Clearly the settlement activity that’s taken place in occupied Mexico since then is illegal. When I meet the President tomorrow I will tell him to halt all building activity in Texas immediately. Two lands for two peoples, yes, but not on land taken by force from Mexico,” the Prime Minister said.

Asked if his hard-line stance could hurt the U.S.-Israel relationship, Netanyahu reiterated Israel’s commitment to America’s security and the unshakeable friendship shared by the two countries, then added, “But who was it who said, part of friendship is being able to tell your friend the truth. The ball is now in Obama’s court."

Boris Badenov, Natasha Fatale, and of course, Fearless Leader

I just stole the whole thing, with a hat tip to Bob Belevedere for the link and, as usual, the eye catching photo. Great stuff!

Another Betrayal

Barry gives it his famous intimidating stare down. No dice.

It is no secret that Israel is under constant threat of destruction, that her people are frequently attacked and continually under threat of attack, that her neighbors have attempted to destroy her many times in the past, and with the over-throw of regimes like the Mubarak regime in Egypt the Middle-East has become increasingly unstable, and the only ally and Western style Democracy that can be of help to us in the region is, in fact, Israel.

This all being true, how can President Obama come out one day before the arrival of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and dictate what Israel must accept, completely disregarding commitments this nation made to Israel just seven years ago? Does he not recall the land for peace deal that was brokered with Ariel Sharon, adopted by their government on June 6, 2004 and enacted in August 2005? is he ignorant of how Israel forced its citizens out, but no peace was forthcoming from the Palestinians? What in the world does President Obama mean by treating our ally as he has?

Here is what the Israeli Department of State had to say:

"Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress," the office wrote on Twitter. "Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines."

In preparation for the Gaza strip peace offering, President George W. Bush outlined the U.S. position in a 2004 letter to Ariel Sharon, assuring Israel that the United States would not pressure Israel to return to the old borders that existed before Israel fought the 1967 war. Those boarders were virtually impossible to defend, and invited attack.

The president's letter received the bi-partisan endorsement of the congress, which passed a resolution in the House of Representatives by a vote of 407-9 and in the Senate by a vote of 95-3. Because of this commitment, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon was willing to take the unpopular risk of forcing 9,000 of his fellow Israelis out of their homes in Gaza, allowing the region to promptly fall under the control of Hamas.

Obama has essentially disregarded this commitment, undermining the faith our allies can have in this president and in this nation. In doing so President Obama has done this nation no favors. He has weakend us in the eyes of our friends and in the eyes of our enemies. In addition, he has callously placed in jeopardy the lives of the 350,000 Israelis who live in well-established communities on the “wrong” side of the border to which Obama now demands Israel retreat. Disgraceful.

Mark Steyn discusses it with the help of Hugh Hewitt here. April Gavaza does fine all by herself here, while Bob Belevedere knocks it out of the park here.

Not Quite Straight

What's with this guy?

The War Powers resolution was put in place by congress in 1973 in the wake of the prolonged use of the military in Vietnam. It had been specifically designed by a joint resolution from congress to check the president from using the US military in a combat role without congressional approval. By the terms of the resolution, the President can only send our armed forces into action abroad by authorization of Congress. It requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action, and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days. But for President Obama, that's all just a little to restrictive. It cramps his style.

President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

Might it not have been better to ask congress about whether or not you need to seek their approval, rather than just informing them you think you no longer need it?

“Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”

US aircraft flying suppression missions place US armed forces at risk, and though you might not feel flying missile equipped drones over Libya to be an act of war, the Libyans on the receiving end of the missile strike might feel differently. Didn't you cite the War Powers Act when you started this whole thing off?

From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21. Those 60 days expire today.

Not good.

'Bagdad Cafe' Open Thread

   What did you think?

Why Federal Dollars and Federal Regulations Fail to Help Educate Our Kids

And here we thought we had totally bombed.  Sweet!

It is human behavior that one always ends up dealing with. When dollars are involved, scoring the dollars outranks making our kids well educated. Case in point:

A USA Today investigation put a microscope on Noyes, where in just two years, the number of students passing math on the standardized tests increased from 10 percent to 58 percent.

The school’s dramatic improvement earned it a National Blue Ribbon award from the U.S. Department of Education. It’s an honor that was given to only 264 public schools nationwide.

But in the 2010 testing round, 80 percent of Noyes classrooms were flagged for having a suspicious number of incorrect answers erased and corrected.

Somehow, school test results end up looking better after a little reflection and careful reconsideration of the questions. Are we to believe the kids are just damn good and at changing wrong answers to right? Apparently the change ratio was 12.7, as in it was 12.7 times more likely that an answer changed was changed from wrong to right. You're more likely to correctly guess the powerball numbers than to have tests changed so consistently to the correct response. Now how do you think that happened?

Brilliant.