The saddest thing ...

...about the funeral service I attended yesterday was the small coffin. As a teacher, I've been to a number of funerals of teens and young adults. There is a certain logic to most of these--it's either a catastrophic illness or some risky or extreme behavior. You wouldn't call them senseless in spite of the pain.

In this case, it was the death of a four year-old, from some unexplained cause. The parents have been in the midst of a very unpleasant divorce. The parents had separated and the children were with mom. Ostensibly, the child went to bed one evening, and never awakened. I don't know the story, but there was certainly some tension at the funeral. Mom was not present, and the story was that there is a cloud of suspicion over the child's death, which authorities are pursuing. No one knows anything for sure.

The celebrant spoke in his brief homily about a phrase from the liturgy--"the sure and certain hope of the resurrection." This addresses the situation most fittingly. In the first place, our faith is that the kingdom of heaven welcomes its newest soul with open arms and in God's love and comfort. Our prayers have value in carrying the young spirit to the bosom of the Maker. Secondly, we are reminded that our world is not paradise. We, God's people, do horrible things. These things are not just the outpourings of aberrant, sick individuals but belong to us as the human family. All are called to repentance and sorrow, even though specific moral guilt may not fall on all. By the same token, all are called to hope--repentance is pointless without a hope of forgiveness and renewal of life, "a sure and certain hope of the resurrection." This is what enables us to abide the sadness.

Janus? Is that you?

President Barack Obama signed a law that explicitly bans federal funding of any “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death” only two days after he lifted President Bush’s executive order banning federal funding of stem cell research that requires the killing of new human embryos.

Goodness--words mean nothing with him. To adapt an O'Reilly-ism: is he the bloviator-in-chief?

He's got to be kidding.

"Things two years ago were not as good as we thought because there were a lot of underlying weaknesses in the economy. They're not as bad as we think they are now."

After spending two months telling us how dire things are, now he wants us to believe it's just hunky-dory, just like that? This demonstrates one of two things, or both: (a) he thinks the public are fools; (b) he has no clue what he's talking about. Take your pick.

By the way, the stock market, after moving further south in response to a series of words from the President and the Treasury Dude, has moved north for three days. Why? Bernanke spoke. It's apparently no harder than that.

One more thing: Mr. Geithner DOES look like the palest guy at the dude ranch--the one who needs a seat belt for his saddle.

So, where's the money going?

Two investment principles that people are following with their money right now:

1. Put the money where it's safe--minimize risk;
2. Put the money where the government has little or no access to it--taxes WILL rise.

So, it's no wonder the markets continue to slalom. Folks are stuffing their mattresses.

Of course, the nasty side of that will come when inflation hits. Then, the mattress-stuffers will be caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place unless they've stumbled into assets that appreciate pretty dynamically. But now, and as long as the current president and congress have sway, apparently no risk is a good risk.

My, what thin skins!

This White House crew, including their boss, have the thinnest skins in memory, and lack the shame to hide that fact in public. Like the old coach said to his excessively-celebrating athlete following a score: "Act like you've been there before."

See here: Gibbs takes gloves off to challenge reporters, hosts who cross Obama.

And of course, the ever-even-handed Mrs. Pelosi just loves freedom of political speech, as well: Speaker Pelosi Backs Senate Amendment to Regulate Talk Radio.

Miscellaneous

**The new Time Magazine (3/2/09) has "Best Actress" Kate Winslet on the cover. Shall we speculate a little? Why the putative Excellent Actress and not also the Actor? I'm sure they have their editorial preferences. Here's one theory: The reason there isn't an Actor is that they'd have to put You-Know-Who on the cover, again. Is it possible they couldn't bring themselves to do it?

**Stupid question of the week: Will the Illinois senatorial/office-peddling scandals ever end?

Most humbly, a prediction

First, check out today's headlines from CNS news--

Obama’s Stimulus Will Cause 'Lower Wages' for American Workers, Says Congressional Budget Office

Only 23 Percent of Stimulus Will be Spent This Fiscal Year, Congressional Budget Office Finds

Now, to me this bailout doesn't sound like very sound policy for relief that will be noticeable any time soon. It seems that the more effective help will more likely come from (a) last year's bailout distribution for financial institutions and (b) separate bills now being targeted at financers and troubled home owners. So, what, aside from the tax cuts, is the stimulus package for?

My guess: the ambiguity and corruption in that bill signed Tuesday during Mr. Obama's junket to Denver will cause much of the funding to be tied up in litigation and subject to criminal probes for a decade. (Hopefully) some of the folks who stand to gain the most and who voted for it will lose their offices as a result.

Here's a link to the Congressional Budget Office report: CBO analysis.

See?

I made a comment some time back about Marxist-style rhetoric. It is the view that words are little more than political manipulation. See Professor Bradley Schiller, writing in Opinion Journal:

"Mr. Obama's analogies to the Great Depression are not only historically inaccurate, they're also dangerous. Repeated warnings from the White House about a coming economic apocalypse aren't likely to raise consumer and investor expectations for the future. In fact, they have contributed to the continuing decline in consumer confidence that is restraining a spending pickup. Beyond that, fearmongering can trigger a political stampede to embrace a "recovery" package that delivers a lot less than it promises. A more cool-headed assessment of the economy's woes might produce better policies."

A Presidents' Day Thought

Historian Richard Norton Smith: Great presidents not only speak to us--they speak for us.

Shame and more shame.

Shame on these people--specifically, the president and the congress. The stimulus the country needs should address priorities, not all this senseless growth of government spending. Here are the clear priorities: provide relief in the housing mortgage sector--people genuinely need some intervention here; get the banks lending again--otherwise, what was the original TARP for?; provide people with quick cash through a fast tax rebate and/or substantial tax cuts. These actions would be LESS COSTLY and far more effective than this "generational theft," as several parties have called it. The nation will be limping from this ineffective indebtedness for many years. Actually, if all they did was to help with the problematic mortgages--which were encouraged by the government in the first place--the neediest and hardest-hit would benefit directly, and the economy would start itself in short order. I hate to call people fools, but this train is heading for the cliff.