

Along the edge of the Shenandoah National Forest, May 16, 2009.
“If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.” Thus wrote the Sicilian writer Giuseppe di Lampedusa, in The Leopard. This seems to me the guiding principle of the Obama presidency. To many Americans, he seems a flaming radical. To me, he is a pragmatic conservative, albeit one responding to extraordinary times.
Eviscerating the rule of law in the Chrysler bankruptcy so as to protect favored constituencies (mainly labor) at the expense of those to whom the law gave priority
Becoming a headhunter hiring and firing corporate directors and CEOs
De facto nationalization of the leading financial institutions
Federalizing executive compensation in the financial sector
Preempting state corporate law on issues like selection of boards of directors and compensation of executives
Refusing to let healthy institutions exit TARP
Bullying Chrysler's creditors
Playing shell games with the stress tests
An enormous expansion of the budget and huge budget deficits for as far as the eye can see
Raising the size of the government as a percent of GDP from about 20 to 22 on what seems to be a permanent basis
Planning a de facto federal takeover of health care, which amounts to 17% of the US economy (the public plan will almost certainly squeeze most private insurance out of the market, creating de facto a single payer plan)
We've become accustomed to our economic dominance in the world, forgetting that it wasn't reckless deals and get-rich-quick schemes that got us where we are, but hard work and smart ideas -- quality products and wise investments. We started taking shortcuts. We started living on credit, instead of building up savings.
Last month, four respected public-interest groups - Democracy 21, Common Cause, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG - called on the House ethics committee to launch an inquiry into whether campaign contributions from the lobbying firm PMA Group, its employees and clients improperly influenced Democratic lawmakers in deciding whether to fund various projects.
[O]n Tuesday, the House voted 215-182 against a Republican resolution to initiate a House ethics committee inquiry. The vote was not strictly partisan - 29 Democrats went against their leadership in favor of an investigation.
Someone important appears not to be telling the truth about her knowledge of the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs). That someone is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.