'Lanie's Got a Gun & Other Smart Things

Color me amused:

According to two witnesses, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia took fellow Justice Elena Kagan out for a lesson in skeet shooting at his shooting club in Virginia last week.

The witnesses saw Scalia at the Fairfax Rod and Gun Club, where he is a member, around noon on Wednesday of last week. He was with a woman who was noticeably diminutive in height, like Kagan, who stands at about five feet three inches. The witnesses, who got a very close look at the pair, say that the woman was the newest Supreme Court Justice.

Scalia was bending down in order to teach Kagan how to hold the shotgun, the witnesses say, and the pair were shooting skeet.

Nino certainly does know how to charm the women of the court. Showtunes at the piano with Ruth, shooting at the range with ‘Lanie, and sharing tongue rolls with Sonya.

He’s smart to play nice with the women.

Also very smart: Mickey Kaus in this piece at Newsweek, on how Obama could have held on to more smart indies:

All it would have taken was a bit of sincere symbolism. Or at least effective symbolism. On at least four fronts:

1). . . As Charles Lane points out, it’s one thing for the UAW to negotiate wages above what the average taxpayer makes. It’s another to make those taxpayers then subsidize your wages when they bankrupt your employer. Why didn’t Obama ask for at least a symbolic cut—say $2/hr in wages, from $28 to $26? According to Lane, car czarlet Steve Rattner says in his book that the administration feared a strike—a threat Lane scoffs at. But a strike would have been great! Let the UAW strike, and have Obama face them down over whether $26/hour is a reasonable wage for assembly line work. They’d cave soon enough—and after that it would have been difficult to see Obama as in the pocket of the unions.

Yup. Read the whole thing. Kaus is spot-on, here. The scenario he suggests here is a demonstration of effective leadership that signals a comprehension of (and alignment with) the concerns of those footing the bill.

This has been Obama’s biggest weakness. It’s not just a “branding” issue or a problem of his being too remote (although he is); Obama has simply not been able to convince the taxpayers that he understands that they are, in the end, his bosses and not his subjects. Taking the sort of action described by Kaus would have gone a long way toward demonstrating to the taxpayers that he–as their steward–could be trusted to look after their interests. He did not do that when he had the nation on his side, choosing instead to lecture, condescend and ultimately tell the country to take the stuff he was shoving down their throats, and like it.

That’s not good stewardship; it’s not good leadership. Even if Obamacare was the most brilliant plan in the world, which it is not, the way it was served to the country is what is at the heart of this election.
The voters are saying, “you’re telling us what’s gonna be? No, we’re telling you. You work for us, not the other way around.” I don’t get the impression, though, that he will listen.

Kaus’ piece also demonstrates why it is a good thing for a president to include among his advisors a few voices from outside the insulated enclave; if your companions are not all in lockstep, they’re not just tripping over the same things, some are finding other avenues to go down.

A Smart Move: CBS gets real about the unemployment numbers. Very sobering stuff.

A Smart Program: What a gift to these families

Ann Althouse: really not liking Obama’s traveling plans for India. I personally agree with Ed Morrissey, that insisting on the teleprompter in India is just a bad move. It does not impress.

George Will: Liking Tim Pawlenty. I am, too, which surprises me.

Bizzyblog: Clever!

Depressing

Silly: Who keeps telling the Vatican to try to court the pop-culture.

Oxymoronic

Fascinating: by 2100, more people will speak Hebrew than Greek

Not smart: Balloting screw-ups in NY. Funny how these things always seem to hurt the GOP.

If you have half a second: help couples who can’t afford it to experience a Marriage Encounter weekend. My husband and I did that about 18 years ago, and it was invaluable.

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Pingback: WEALTH CREATION: The Real Fabric of Society!!!!! « Temple of Mut

  • OLD FAN

    All the items are truly interesting. SCJ Scalia is a real fascination. Perhaps there is something divine to have such great human beings in places they are needed the most at such challenging times.

    The Kaus article is spot on, yet, it reflect an odd fashion. It is okay to reference a critic of Obama, as long as that criticism isn’t directed at the real problem – the entire Democratic Party, or if it includes a rejection of GW Bush. It is as if they can handle the concept which doesn’t reveal their entire existence in political fashionable terms is misguided. Like, ‘hey, if you have unreasonable disdain for the likes of Bush and others like him, we will listen to your ideas Obama has gone too far … we need Billy and Hilly back’.

    It all wreaks of denial. I see it often, even from those so called Conservative Punditry Elites who entertain the idea the Clintons were different – as if Billy could relate to the people better. Well, Bill Clinton wasn’t the greatest Politician of all time in reality, having driven most Americans to give the House back to the Republicans after 40 years of Democrat control. And by the way, no greatest living politician would ever create an environment in which he would get himself Impeached by his own fellow politicians.

    The denial is thick in regards to the entire Democratic Party, and we can see elements in the Kaus offering. The Clintons are a major symbol of this twisted folly. Even though we now know they advised Carter during the Malaise, lied about the ‘end of large government’ rushing to give the USA the biggest tax increase in Our History and attempting to Nationalize Health Care behind closed doors, treated the attacks of Radical Muslim Militants as a mere criminal matter, appeased some of the most horrid dictatorships on the Planet, many still see the Clintons as ‘centrists’. It is nonsense. The entire Democratic Party concept has made a repeated mess with the same unethical con, peddling influence via Public Service to Union dependents, throughout the Nation for decades, leaving States like NJ, NY, MI, LA, CA, etc., a sincere nightmare.

    The sole focus on just the ugly Partisans named Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc., is a huge mistake.

    Just as running very poor candidates in essential elections can undermine all. As stated in your “HELP” video offering for Monday, I now know more and more the narrative Democrats are using trying to exploit poor offerings like O’Donnell and portray them as the symbol of the opposition to the Democratic Party is working. They are running on this, and it is sad to see it have influence. But this is the old Democrat standard of playing on the easy prey of poor stereotypical offerings.

    See the painful reality here:
    “Meanwhile, over on the Today show, NBC’s David Gregory repeated the theory of some Democrats that Delaware Republican Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell and other Tea Party-backed candidates are hurting Republicans in neighboring Pennsylvania. And, while he at least conceded that the Tea Party is a “legitimate movement,” he described Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle – in addition to O’Donnell – as “outliers.” He did not acknowledge the role the mainstream media may be playing in turning swing voters against Tea Party candidates.”

    No doubt many will try to deny the truth, as they have so much invested in selling the Fashionable Image game. Others are so intense devotees, they will only turn to vilify the honest insight. Delaware was a huge Tea Party Express mistake, and one hopes it doesn’t haunt us all in the end.

    The MSM has been running this pathetic theme night and day, trying to desperately associate the opposition to their disastrous Democratic Party interest with a dangerous extreme – using O’Donnell, Miller, Paul, etc., including Mrs. Palin. Unfortunately it is influential and seems to be working. It clearly has had an affect in PA, and this I know from private sources.

    “And now, Democrats seem to be developing their own theme. In race after race, they’re painting the Republican opponents as extremists and dangerous.”

    I remember when Hannity, Limbaugh, etc., all expressed ‘wonder’ at why Obama & Biden were traveling to Delaware to campaign against O’Donnell. It was truly surprising. They sold this as evidence the Race was closer than imagined – wink, wink. But they couldn’t be so ignorant to reality, could they? The truth was, Democrats like Obama – Biden were traveling to Delaware to Nationalize the O’Donnell – Tea Party Express Experience to portray all other GOP Candidates in a similar image as the poor offering there. It was even amazing to see the likes of the mighty EIB take the bait, and focus on the ‘separation of Church and State’ issue, vs. the winning topic of the tanking Economy, which is exactly the distraction Democrats are seeking. What was the Man behind the Golden Mic thinking? Too much fashion to remain level headed?

    All of this sophistry, from the good side, is like running John McCain, inviting a loss – enabling the Democratic Party. It may be entirely ugly for Democrats to exploit distorted stereotypes, but that is their bread and butter. It is a sincere reality and a political problem. And they sstill have a MSM Establishment able to push the tired mantra to great influence.

    We simply cannot allow the running of weak candidates, like those offered lately via the FASHION provided by an emotive Identity Movement. Certainly frustration with RINOs is understandable, we all want better candidates. But Conservatism used to be about substance, and the case in Delaware is anything but. The Conservative Echo Arena, pushed by some hubris in Elite Conservative Punditry Circles, is not using sound, reasoned, objective Conservative principles. After 2004, they all blew by the winds, grew reactionary in the face of fears over Iraq, and began to enable the opposite. Today it looks as if some have not learned a thing.

    We have to do better, as we can no longer afford to give elections away in this sophomoric fashion.

    And 2012 is equally as essential…

  • Gregg the Obscure

    The lefties want everyone to view themselves as a recipient of government funds and that only those bad folks over there are responsible to pay for any of it. They’ve sold way too many on this scheme.

  • Chris

    On Kaus and prescriptions for Pres. Obama:

    I felt two years ago (and still do today) that a truly sincere “agent of change” would have publicly called on all elected officers of the government to turn over in the course of the next 4 to 8 years. “The people have voted for change, and not just at the top of the executive branch,” he could have announced. “Thirty years in Congress is an honorable career; but the country has changed since 1978, and it’s time for a new generation to take it’s place…” etcetera, etcetera.

    Such a statement would have brought him some short term trouble from Democratic time-servers; but it would have inoculated the President from being too closely associated with them later on. (And he was inevitably going to need that dissociation: did people, even in 2009, believe that Pelosi and Reid would truly prove popular?)

    In the event things turned bad by midterms, the President would have been able to co-opt changes in Congress as the public’s working out though elections what he had already recommended should happen by voluntary attrition. Granted, no one could have foreseen the magnitude of what’s poised to happen soon; but the President should have understood that his majority was always slim, and a small swing would affect his ability to govern. Being on record as supporting “change” in Congress would have placed him in a better position with the opposition, should they ever come to power.

    Finally, of course, support for a turnover of Congressional personnel would have been the right thing to do. Thirty years really IS too long. In fact, 15 years is too long. If you imagine that you’re presence in Congress is indispensible beyond your 12th year of service, then you really are a hopeless egoist.

    Unfortunately, the President didn’t do any of this because (it seems clear now) it was always really about power–and not about change and the popular will. Now, having defied the latter, he’s about to get a taste of the former.

  • Joel

    Just curious: Is Judge Scalia any relation to you?

  • Bill

    “I felt two years ago (and still do today) that a truly sincere “agent of change” would have publicly called on all elected officers of the government to turn over in the course of the next 4 to 8 years.”

    No one has that kind of clout. I was taught we have three parts of government with checks and balances.

  • Dustin

    It was often noted that Kagan is unlikely to influence other jurists to the left, and conservatives should see Kagan as a comparably better result than someone more persuasive. I wonder if she can be persuaded. It seems very unlikely given her work for the Clinton White House, where it appears she is a rigid ideologue.

    Doesn’t hurt to try, though.

  • JuliB

    Bill -

    ‘Called on’ – as in use the presidential bully pulpit to call for real change. Not force it…

    Sure it would have been symbolic, but wow… what an idea!

  • Maggie45

    I urge everyone to click on the link next to A Smart Program above. I don’t think I have ever read a more moving story in all my 65 years of life. What a gift indeed.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X