Happy Father’s Day

Dr. Melissa Clouthier has some food for thought:

It’s politically incorrect to say so, but dads matter. They matter to children. We know they matter because we’re a society hungering for positive male leadership everywhere from home to high office. . . .
And yet this research from the Heritage Foundation would seem controversial:
“The principal cause of child poverty in the U.S. is the absence of married fathers in the home,” Robert Rector, senior research fellow at the leading Washington think tank, says in a new paper illustrating the social costs of record-high births outside marriage – and of homes without fathers. . . .

Hey, I’m a blogger with six kids and the oldest is getting married in three weeks. Isn’t today a good day to hit the tip jar?

The Goal That Wasn’t

Am I turning into an un-American soccer-loving faggot?

What’s wrong with me? Why do I keep blogging about this controversy? But that ripped-off goal still rankles:

IRENE, South Africa — FIFA will not address the performance of referee Koman Coulibaly, the embattled official from the Americans’ 2-2 draw with Slovenia, before Monday, a spokesman has said. . . . .
For its part, the U.S. is moving on, with no way to appeal the disallowed goal.
“There is no process for appeals for a decision on the field,” team spokesman Michael Kammarman said Saturday. “We have not asked for any official comment from FIFA in regards to the call.” . . .
“I think it’s a good goal, first. I think the only things really that could be called would be penalty kicks for us,” coach Bob Bradley said. . . .
“So you can speculate all you want about which guy and everything, I think it’s a waste of time. All right? I think there was nothing there. I think it’s a good goal. And that’s that.”
The U.S. team has been besieged with questions why soccer referees don’t publicly explain controversial decisions, as umpires and referees do in U.S. sports.
“We’re all accustomed to the fact that if it’s an NFL playoff game and there’s a call that’s in question, there will be a statement by the league from the referees, but FIFA operates differently,” Bradley said.

If anybody can suggest a good, red-blooded, all-American reason to care about this World Cup stuff, please let me know. I might need an excuse, if I ever actually start to care.

Also, can someone suggest a derogatory term for Algerians?

UPDATE: Donald Douglas is a good red-blooded all-American. Because he links me, that’s why.

UPDATE II: Our friend suggests this video:

UPDATE III: Linked by Da Tech Guy.

Maybe The Establishment Clause Was A Bad Idea

by Smitty

World opinion condemns the US for a ‘savage’ execution

Setting aside the fact that Utah is not ‘the US’, if we lacked the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, we could have a State Religion. Then the execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner could be chalked up to honor killing.

Personally, the death penalty is a perfect example of State’s Rights: if you think it’s a bad idea, move to a state without the practice. For the record, I’m not a huge fan, due to the costs involved of achieving the required level of certainty.

Then again, for a Timothy McVeigh case, it may be a deterrent.

More at iOwnTheWorld

Peggy Noonan, Secret Motörhead Fan

by Smitty (via Insty)

The president is starting to look snakebit. He’s starting to look unlucky, like Jimmy Carter. It wasn’t Mr. Carter’s fault that the American diplomats were taken hostage in Tehran, but he handled it badly, and suffered. He defied the rule of the King in “Pippin,” the Broadway show of Carter’s era, who spoke of “the rule that every general knows by heart, that it’s smarter to be lucky than it’s lucky to be smart.” Mr. Carter’s opposite was Bill Clinton, on whom fortune smiled with eight years of relative peace and a worldwide economic boom. What misfortune Mr. Clinton experienced he mostly created himself. History didn’t impose it.

So, is ‘snakebit’ a Patriotic Grace deficit? Or could it be that Carter and Obama are fools, wheras Clinton has the benefit of low animal cunning?

But Mr. Obama is starting to look unlucky, and–file this under Mysteries of Leadership–that is dangerous for him because Americans get nervous when they have a snakebit president. They want presidents on whom the sun shines.

I’ll defer to Da Tech Guy or Little Miss Attila for a more serious Roman Catholic read the topic, but this ‘luck’ business is laughable. What was so lucky about Abraham Lincoln? I don’t think that luck plays any more role than that seen in the Alvin Greene candidacy. I do think there is a general cause-effect relationship between moral turpitude and tragedy.

It isn’t Mr. Obama’s fault that an oil rig blew in the Gulf and a gusher resulted.

True. My emphasis follows:

The administration’s failure to take impressive action after the spill dinged its reputation for competence. The president’s failure to turn things around Tuesday night with a speech damaged his reputation as a man whose rhetorical powers are such that he can turn things around with a speech.

Who gives a flying French fornication whether the action impresses anyone, Noonan? Leadership is not about running a godforsaken popularity contest. ‘Words Matter’ Does Not Mean ‘Words Affect Matter’. You simply cannot ‘give good speech’ and then expect the problem to fix itself. You especially cannot appear un-serious by taking vacations and golfing. Now is not the time. In a good leader, such tomfoolery would undermine all of the photo ops and Oval Office speechifying. In the case of BHO, stroking on the course while the oil spreads re-inforces the notion that, other than campaigning and tearing pages out of the Alinsky playbook, he’s useless. Snakebit?
Peggy:

There is still a sense about Mr. Obama that he needs George W. Bush in order to give his presidency full shape and meaning.

The sense about BHO is that he is a two-dimensional idealogue, selling failed ideas with a rhetorical gloss of success. BHO is crossing the threshold where ‘His [country]men would follow him anywhere, but only out of curiosity.’ And certainly not out of any sense of self-preservation.

Mr. Obama needs Mr. Bush in the corner and doesn’t have him. That’s part of why he looks so alone out there.

I cannot respond to this portion without sounding completely misogynistic.

And seems so snakebit, so at the mercy of forces. When you’re snakebit you get some sympathy, and some will come.

Here is the sympathy, courtesy of Lemmy, in this case, (you secret fan!):
Peggy:

As for the president, the great question is what you do when you start to feel snakebit.

Resign. Just go. Take crooksAdministration with. Anticipate a full set of pardons–concern over recriminations shouldn’t slow the decision.

I echo Bill Quick:

Listen up, you punked, chumped boobs: We looked at Obama not through your rose colored hallucinations, but through the cold, clear spectacles of reality. None of what he’s done since has surprised us one bit. In fact, many of us, myself included, predicted it even before his coronation by people like you. Yes, it’s nice that after a year and a half of horrible examples, the truth about him is finally beginning to penetrate your skulls. But why, for the love of god, couldn’t you see it at the beginning, when it was no less obvious, but your understanding of it might have done some good?
Actually, never mind. Since Obama’s election will turn out to be the worst thing to happen to the leftist project in America in the past hundred years, and will free a generation from the chains of leftist quackery at just the time such freedom is most sorely needed, I actually thank our lucky stars for useful idiots like you two. Without such, we might have been saddled with John McCain, and that would truly have been a disaster for conservatism, liberty, and America.

I’ll add a rider that the Hayekian lesson to draw from this atrocious administration is that ending the Federal Reserve and repealing the 16th Amendment, if not the 17 Amendment as well, are going to be crucial to breaking the Imperial Fed problem of which BHO is merely symptomatic.
Let’s not overly dignify BHO by thinking him the root cause of either the general Constitutional crisis the country faces, or the energy independence crisis that culminated in the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Update: Paco-lanche!

Dictatorship of the Obamatariat: Federal Court Rejects Gerald Walpin Lawsuit

Via Instapundit, we learn that a judge has rejected the AmeriCorps inspector general’s wrongful termination claim. Byron York explains:

[I]f the decision by U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts stands, in the future the White House will be able fire other inspectors general as it fired Walpin without fear of legal consequences. . . .
Judge Roberts rejected Walpin’s claim by deciding that Walpin was not summarily fired, after all. Even though Walpin was placed on immediate administrative leave on June 10, his authority removed, denied access to his office, email, etc., Roberts says Walpin was not technically fired until later, after the White House had notified Congress. Therefore, the president did not violate the law in ousting Walpin.

Is this just raw politics?

The legal ruling comes nearly a month after Walpin filed an unusual petition with a federal appeals court in Washington, trying to force Roberts to issue a decision.
Roberts was appointed to the bench in 1998 by President Bill Clinton. Walpin, a prominent Republican attorney in New York, was named to the I.G. post by President George W. Bush in 2007.

Jimmie Bise has more at Sundries Shack.