We learn that two students at Sidwell Friends school in Washington are there because they receive assistance under the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship program. (The president’s daughters are enrolled in Sidwell Friends.)

The omnibus spending bill now before Congress will terminate the Opportunity Scholarship program over the objections of D.C. mayor Fenty and his city’s education officials.

When the president signs the spending bill, he will be effectively removing two of his daughter’s classmates from Sidwell and forcing them into a D.C. public school. This is presumably for the benefit of public education in D.C.

You would think, if not hope, that with the economy teetering on the brink, partly as a result of misguided government housing policies, that the government would recognize its past market-distorting errors, and devise a remedy whose primary beneficiaries would be:

A. First-time buyers and renters who saved their money, sat out the bubble, and now want to take advantage of falling prices to finally achieve their goal of owning a home.

B. Irresponsible and/or greedy buyers who tried to profit quickly from the bubble and secured liar loans, zero-downs, teaser ARMs, or huge seconds to pay down extravagant consumer debts but are now under water.

Sadly, in a politically hasty moment, the government chose a hair-of-the-dog remedy that benefits primarily B.

And in a surreal media atmosphere, the mainstream media describes this pathetically weak but costly plan as “bold” while the market continues its slide.

The consensus among the so-called experts seems to be that the passage of the massive spending bill constitutes a major victory for Obama, and that it demonstrates effective leadership.

In truth, it’s rather obvious that the victory belongs squarely in the Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate; and that any leadership demonstrated in the White House was of the “by the nose” variety, with Rahm Emanuel pushing from behind.

This is what happens when you have a weak president with zero executive experience; he defers to those who have already been in power but share his ideology, and for assurance surrounds himself with experienced hacks who can disguise his decision-making shortcomings.

So many are so caught up in the myth of Obama’s identity, charisma, and perceived intellectual prowess that they have completely failed to notice that he had outsourced the entire stimulus package to the Pelosi/Reid junta (PRJ), and not just the details, but also the general direction and scope. In doing so, he not only abandoned his campaign promises of bipartisanship, but ignored any concerns from representatives and members of his own party.

President Obama’s approval ratings were high enough that he could easily have drawn on the expertise of his august group of respected economic advisers, heeded the findings from the Congressional Budget Office, and pushed for enough changes to the proposed legislation to gain the support of not only the Blue Dog Democrats, but several congressional Republicans as well, as well as a dozen or so GOP senators. And that would have been a major victory, surpassing Reagan’s tax cut triumph in 1981.

Instead, he abandoned his campaign promises on “line-by-line” scrutiny of budget items, openness and transparency of the legislative process, tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses, 48-hr internet publication of major bills, and so on. No mention of these promises was made, not even by the mainstream media, and the “main street” is wondering why.

But any doubt that Mr. Obama was a hand puppet of the PRJ was shattered by his first “press conference,” which was not a conference at all but a prepared statement followed by questions from an ordered list of pre-selected questioners, who ensured that their questions would preserve their status for the next “conference.” (Mr. Obama obviously prefers the town meeting format from the campaign days.)

We now have solid evidence that the Democratic Party wanted to recapture the White House not for the power it could bring to bear in advancing their agenda, but for the power it would surrender to Congress.

The few political analysts and journalists who have noticed the complete capitulation of Mr. Obama to the PRJ are struggling to explain his “leadership” role against the backdrop of the rapid-fire abandonment of the few specific campaign pledges he had made, and have reluctantly concluded that either: (a) Obama will exert his leadership at a the appropriate time (but what is time is more appropriate than a crisis?); or (b) Obama is a deceitful, old-style hard-left machine politician who campaigned under a facade.

The “Medvedevization” of the U.S. president is a disturbing scene, especially considering the historical and remarkable path that led to our 44th.

From Change.gov:

End the Practice of Writing Legislation Behind Closed Doors: As president, Barack Obama will restore the American people’s trust in their government by making government more open and transparent. Obama will work to reform congressional rules to require all legislative sessions, including committee mark-ups and conference committees, to be conducted in public.

Already, another promise broken big time.

From Iowahawk

As grad student experts have long taught us, Western culture is quick to marginalize and devalue knowledge from the “Other.” For example, look at the recent ridicule aimed at the “Egg of Power” sculpture President Obama keeps in the Oval Office. There is a disturbing hint of racism to the ridicule, because that sculpture happens to refer to a traditional proverb that comes from, depending on how you Google it, either Kenya or a 1993 Hallmark Kwanzaa card. Would these critics be so cavalier in their snickering if the president had brought some traditional white art, like a Successories poster or replica Harry Potter wand?

This kind of closed-mindedness is wrong. Just because a culture has occasional problems with dysentery doesn’t mean it can’t produce sage nuggets of universal wisdom, suitable for framing. It is also wrong because it ignores the incredible merchandising opportunities. Just look at Hillary Clinton and Al Gore – what better way to show off your expansive intelligence and down-with-the-Other multicultural chops than quoting the occasional Third World tribal advice?

That’s why I’m proud to introduce LEADages, my exclusive line of exotic motivational leadership proverbs from around the developing world. Designed for the executive on the go, these power-packed primitive catchphrases let your co-workers know that you’re the kind of leader who stays two steps ahead in the sensitivity game. Drop one into your next PowerPoint deck, and you’re on the fast track to the HR multicultural committee! Look for the complete line of limited edition desk sculptures, coming soon to SkyMall.

“If you want to travel fast, travel alone. If you want to travel far, travel together. If you want to travel in comfort, fake an ankle sprain and convince the other travelers to carry you.”
Ashanti

“Beware the eye of the tiger, for he is a survivor, and he knows many power ballads.”
Mulleti

“Give a man a fish, he will eat today. Promise a man a million fish, he will contribute heap big wampum to your tribal election campaign fund.”
Iroquois

“While the polar bear bickers with the seal, that fat asshole walrus snarfs all the fish.”
Inuit

“All around us is a dream; the sky above and land we walk. Kangaroo dung is the nightmares.”
Aborigine

“The man who builds his well at a distance soon laments when his wife’s mustache catches fire.”
Khazhak

“Do not curse the crow who has stolen you chili; tomorrow his rectum will curse the dawn.”
Thai

“The happy man has two chickens; the wise man shares one with the man who has none. The prudent man reports the happy man to the authorities, so they can wise him up.”
Cuban

“The tawny kitten writhes before the white snake.”
Mulleti

“Do not waste your time talking to the yak. Because yakkity yak don’t talk back.”
Mongolian

“Remember that the egg of power will drop if held too loosely; and an egg cannot break a rock. Okay, maybe if it’s some sort of crazy unbreakable super-duper-power egg. But then you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs, and neither can you make an omelet with broken rocks. It would taste like crap, and be hella hard on your teeth enamel. That is why you should probably just order the waffles.”
Luo

“Even the wisest turtle cannot understand the sea. Get real dude, he’s a fucking turtle.”
Samoan

“Beware the Bwana in khaki who hires you for the crew of his TV wildlife documentary, for he is often a lousy tipper.”
Zulu

“The camel has journeyed a thousand miles to reach the oasis palm, and yet he cannot get a date. Not smelling like that, anyway.”
Moroccan

“Working together, two men can do the work of three. The trick is convincing those two other suckers to work together.”
Romanian

“The blue oyster does not fear the reaper.”
Mulleti

“The clever old leopard does not fear double parking in Midtown, for his limo has UN plates and he has diplomatic immunity.”
Malawi

“If your canoe springs a leak, drill a bigger hole to let the water to drain out.”
Arapazowee (extinct tribe)

“Do not barter your ox if it is still under warrantee.”
Tamil

“A watched head never shrinks.”
New Guinean

“The single lotus blossom that brushes against river jade can defeat an army of steel fire-dragon. Well, okay, maybe that’s just the opium talking.”
Chinese

“The lazy monkey mocks the noble lion from the safety of the baobob tree — until the lion pulls out his surprise chain saw. Who’s laughing now, monkey? But it turns out the joke is on both of them, because here comes Marlin Perkins and his surprise tranquilizer darts.”
Senegalese

“Every rose has its thorn — made from poison.”
Mulleti

“A wise man offers his millet to be shared among the village, for his gift will be repaid a thousand times in gratitude. A wiser man takes somebody else’s millet and offers it to the village. Guess what? Same gratitude, and extra millet for good ol’ numero uno.”
Ethiopian

“The loyal dog feasts, but the treacherous cat no can haz cheezburgr.”
Hungarian

“Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. And for god’s sake, bring some deodorant.”
Lao Tse, The Personal Hygiene of War

“The comrade who is late to work will only get the last swig of the vodka. Even then it’s probably half backwash.”
Russian

“Embrace the foreigner, for he only wants to know what love is.”
Mulleti

“The power of the leader is like his loincloth: worn too tight it will ride up and chafe, worn too loose it will expose all his junk.”
Ibo

I was listening to a discussion on the radio about the live birth abortion case in Miami, when I noticed that one of the speakers was trying so hard to avoid the use of the word “abortion” that I realized that this word will join the growing list of words that you will rarely hear uttered by those on the left.

Along with “black,” “oriental,” “handicapped,” “liberal,” “chairman,” “psychopathic,” and other words banned from certain contexts or usage altogether, “abortion” is being replaced by “pro-choice” or simply “choice” by those who advocate abortion on demand but obviously feel uncomfortable about, well, advocating abortion on demand.

The extent to which avoidance of the term has now reached the absurd, such that the speaker actually said “changing attitudes toward pro-choice” when she meant “changing attitudes toward abortion.”

We’re already accustomed to hearing “anti-choice” and other rhetorical substitutions, so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised to see continued movement in this direction. We can’t blame the PC police for this, because “terminated pregnancy” has fulfilled the PC role in most discussions about the actual procedure. But the procedure itself is assiduously avoided when discussing actual events that expose the precarious nature of one side’s position on the law (and debates on its modification).

So as a result I hear “abortion counseling” being replaced by “pro-choice counseling,” and “elected to abort” changed to “chose to terminate her pregnancy,” and “friends who have had abortions” become “friends who have exercised their reproductive rights,” all from the same speaker.

I suppose it won’t be long before I hear “late-term choice.” Or has it been used already?

UPDATE: Will “Press any key to abort” become “Press any key to choose”?

The theme of the November, 1996 issue of National Review was “How to Forget the Election.” In it, Judge Robert Bork contributed an essay on the martini.

IT WAS the worst of the worst of times and the worst of times. It was the election from hell. Our long national nightmare turned out to be only halfway over.

How can we forget, how can we take the edge off our pain (perhaps the only pain Bill Clinton does not feel)? Different strategies will occur, but one of the most promising is the judicious use of alcohol. One cannot, of course, begin the forgetting process at breakfast and continue through the day, since that would have devastating effects on one’s career, marriage, and liver. The tactic is definitely recommended, however, for the early evening hours when, as you zap around the TV channels, you are all too likely to come without warning upon the Clinton visage. That can be a nasty shock to your nervous system. If you have not prepared yourself in advance, it will be too late to avoid the damage and you will totter off to bed to lie awake staring into the dark or to toss fitfully dreaming of fallen republics. Just the right amount of alcohol taken at the right time will, however, enable you to see the humor in America’s having a Banana Republic government, and to fall asleep congratulating yourself on having risen above despair.

The choice of drink, however, is crucial. Wine spritzers will not do it. Here we enter upon controversial territory, and what I am about to say will doubtless be resented bitterly by some conservatives. We must face the fact, however, that these things are not mere matters of personal preference. There is no room here for alcoholic relativism. Just as there are spiritual truths, so there are spiritous truths.

Wine having been dismissed, we may also eliminate, though with less certainty, bourbon. It is sweeter than alcohol should be, and it is likely to depress and make one maudlin when confronted with the Clinton countenance. Scotch is a better bet, but it is is not a bracing drink and so lacks the capacity to tone us up in the way that we will need in these dark days. No, there is only one drink that conveys conservative correctness, spreads warmth and courage throughout one’s soul, and has the additional merit of being the most delicious cocktail ever invented. I refer, of course, to the dry martini, a distinctively American invention, which Bernard DeVoto called the “supreme American gift to world culture.” (Not that the world accepted the gift very eagerly: until recently the only sure way to get a decent martini in England was to go behind the bar and make it yourself. Most of the rest of the world is hopeless.)

The awful truth, however, is that the martini was on the verge of extinction. Just a few years back, no one under the age of forty drank it. Though I can hardly take full credit for the drink’s resurgence, I made a contribution. When I was a judge, I used to tell my clerks, who had never tasted one, that martinis are essential to cultural conservatism. Furthermore, I described the ideal recipe. Several of them accepted my argument, with only one unfortunate result: they took to entering bars in Washington and ordering “Judge Bork martinis.” This gave a somewhat false picture of life in my chambers.

Well, then, what is the description of the proper, indeed the perfect, martini? There is in this matter, as on every serious subject, a number of heresies. In the first place, a drink made with vodka is not a martini. A martini means gin. Second, olives are to be eschewed, except by people who think a martini is a type of salad.

Finally, the martini must be straight up. I recall once seeing a martini “on the rocks” and murmuring, “Oh, the horror, the horror!” Insofar as “on the rocks” indicates a form of bankruptcy, it is a perfectly accurate description of gin and vermouth on ice. There should be some small amount of water in a martini (that is inevitable in the chilling process and makes the drink smoother), but when it is served on the rocks, the amount of water keeps increasing, depriving the martini of its special tang. That is no doubt why Lowell Edmunds writes in The Silver Bullet that “the martini on the rocks is an abomination, and must be classed with fast foods, rock ‘n’ roll, snowmobiles, acid rain, polyester fabrics, supermarket tomatoes, and books printed on toilet paper as a symptom of anomy.”

Well, what is the recipe for the perfect martini? Edmunds says the proportion of gin to vermouth may range from 4:1 to 8:1. The upper end of that range is preferable, and one may even go to 10:1 (the martini that American officers called “the Montgomery” to annoy British officers with a reminder of the Field Marshall’s unwillingness to fight except with overwhelming odds). Some years back a despairing producer of vermouth took out ads advocating 3:1 and asserting that “a dry martini is not a hooker of gin.” Not quite, but a hooker of icy gin would be infinitely preferable to a 3:1 martini.

The three best gins, in my view, are Bombay, Bombay Sapphire, and Tanqueray, but it is possible to make a fine martini with lesser gins. Domestic vermouths are to be avoided. My favorite French vermouth is Boissicre. A piece of lemon rind is to be twisted so that lemon oil comes out of the skin. I am usually unable, however, to get enough oil to drop from the rind to the surface of the martini and so, contrary to the best practice, I place the rind in the drink. The martini should be served in a stemmed glass that has been chilled until it is as cold as possible.

The martini is a very potent cocktail. It is not to be drunk rapidly, but rather sipped and savored. That said, this cocktail is not merely the best means of restoring the tissues, as Bertie Wooster would put it, but also the best means of restoring one’s sanity and sense of humor after the carnage of the ’96 election. The martini was brought back by Republicans with the ’94 elections; it will help us forget ’96 as we yearn for 1998 and 2000.

It’s encouraging, though not comforting, to hear the president admit his team made serious mistakes in vetting cabinet and staff appointments. The admission was intended to preserve the credibility quotient while attempting to do damage control on the competency quotient.

But even that effort may fail as long as Timothy Geithner escapes the same fate as Daschle and Killefer. Especially on the taxes issue, the treasury secretary should be held to at least the same standard as the other two. Does he get a pass because he was already confirmed? If so, why? If he doesn’t “want to send a message on two sets of standards”, then how long will he continue with two sets of standards?

Sorry, until the other shoe drops, Obama’s credibility will go the same way as his competence.