Independent Women's Forum - Charlotte Hays

George Bush's Last Sotu

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:12:00 EST

My SOTU telephone buddy and I thought that George Bush did well last night (and that his sobriety was a welcome relief from the current emotionalism of American politics elsewhere). I would concede that he should have talked more about the economic situation-he should have made the point that some of what is going on now is structural and needs changing. And, of course, I don't like the so-called stimulus package that wreaks havoc on the English language (look up rebate-it doesn't mean handouts). However, I am willing to revise my view of the speech. I have admired Bush personally, and perhaps that got in the way of my seeing glaring faults with his swan song SOTU. Powerline wore no such blinders:

"The first half of President Bush's State of the Union swan song brought together a hodgepodge of disconnected themes and proposals. Devoted to domestic issues, the first half of the speech barely alluded to the war in which we are engaged. The discussion of taxes -- the proposal to make his tax cuts permanent, the vow of no new taxes, the request that those who support higher taxes send their checks and money orders to the IRS -- was the highlight of the first half.

"But would an average citizen watching the first half of the speech even understand the subjects the president was addressing in such a telegraphic style? Earmarks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, No Child Left Behind, the Doha Round, clean energy technology (including advanced battery technology!), greenhouse gases, global climate change, increasing government funding for science, the prohibition of cloning, the confirmation of judges, charitable choice. As Churchill said of the dessert he asked to be removed, this pudding lacked a theme.

"Indeed, the themeless first half of the speech belied the seriousness of the foreign policy issues addressed in the second half of the speech. Here President Bush took justifiable pride in the surge/counterinsurgency strategy that has produced incredible progress on the battlefield in the course of a year. In an act of magnanimity that his opponents will never reciprocate, he confined his derogation of the defeatists in the chamber with him to a single sentence: "When we met last year, many said containing the violence was impossible."

"In year seven of the war against the United States, however, President Bush did not even name the enemy:

"We are engaged in the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century. The terrorists oppose every principle of humanity and decency that we hold dear. Yet in this war on terror, there is one thing we and our enemies agree on: In the long run, men and women who are free to determine their own destinies will reject terror and refuse to live in tyranny.

But what does our enemy believe in? Surely something more was called for."

THIS JUST IN: Some of National Review's symposium on the SOTU is more in line with my own more positive reaction.

The Homeless

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:51:00 EST

I am skeptical about stories on the homeless and the economy. The Washington Post had such a story today: "A Growing Desperation, Housing, Economic Slumps May Portend Rise in Ranks of Region's Homeless, Survey Shows." As far as I can glean from the story, the "survey" consists of asking people on the streets and in shelters why they are there. Not surprisingly, they tend to blame the economy. "I made terrible decisions," or, "I have a substance abuse problem," seem not to have been popular answers. Do you really believe that a significant number of these unfortunates are homeless because of the sub prime lending crisis or because of a lack of affordable housing?

KINF's The Andy Caldwell Show: The Coming Matriarch?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:26:00 EST

IWF Senior Editor, Charlotte Hays, joins the Andy Caldwell Show tonight to talk about a recent piece by Jonathan Rauch on "The Coming American Matriarchy: The Fairer Sex Gets Ready to Take Over." Rauch evaluates the well-known phenomenon of women now outnumbering men in college. But what does it mean?

Up, Up, and Away

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:50:00 EST

Academics are hot under the collar on global warming. However, they can't seem to stop flying, regardless of their carbon footprints. There is an amusing piece on his dilemma here. It gives some of the academics' favorite reasons why they simply must fly:

"My research is a collaborative enterprise. I need to discuss it with colleagues face-to-face (over wine and cheese)."

"The importance of my research outweighs the environmental costs of air travel."

"I know that flying is an environmental problem, but travel is essential to my work (and I really like San Francisco in the fall)."

What did yesterday's global selloff tell us?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:57:00 EST

The editors of the Wall Street Journal have a scary editorial on the global economy, as reflected in yesterday's international selloff:

"Yesterday's selloff suggests that Europe and Asia are in for a bumpy ride as the U.S. economy tries to right itself. Traders in those markets apparently don't have any more faith than we do in the ‘temporary' stimulus packages being discussed in Washington. All the more reason for policy makers to seek their own pro-growth policies, not least by continuing their attempts at tax, labor and financial reform. That's especially true of countries that rely heavily on exports. It's time to focus on policies that can create more domestic prosperity."

If you read carefully, there's a glimmer of hope: pro-growth policies. There are so many people today who know that the Social Security system is in trouble, and yet want to enlarge the purview of government. We need tax cuts and attempts at reform, not burdensome new programs.

Charlie Wilson's War

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:44:00 EST

Don't miss Charlie Wilson's War, a movie that will make you yearn for a day when even Democratic congressmen wanted to fight America's enemies. It's just a terrific movie. Joanne Herring, the sex-crazed, big-haired (but it looks great on Julia Roberts) Texas socialite who raises money through a Tri-Delt auction and says she has been "saved" is portrayed sympathetically. She gets Charlie Wilson, a rapscallion Texas congressman, interested in the plight of the Afghan people in their war with the Soviets. Tom Hanks is superb as Charlie Wilson. The movie opens with Charlie in a hot tub with some babes and an unscrupulous wannabe movie producer. My favorite line: "Boo Boo, no wonder you're the press secretary," he says affectionately when his female press secretary (like all the girls in the office very pretty) explains that Wilson has never been to rehab "because they don't serve drinks there." Philip Seymour Hoffman steals many scenes as the CIA agent who doesn't fit the Ivy League mold-he's a wildman who breaks things and really wants to whip the Soviets, as opposed to waging a war of attrition.

Aaron Sorkin, creator of the alternative White House with Martin Sheen, is the writer. So how politically correct was it? There was an implication that the Cold War had been ended by Charlie Wilson. He did do heroic and great things and helped bring down the evil empire. But Reagan, the recipient of one jab in the movie, was an even greater figure. But, surprisingly, the rest of the movie is just great.

The unintended message that somehow Sorkin didn't get himself: Stay in Iraq and finish the job. I'm sure Sorkin didn't intend it that way. But that's how it came through at the end, when Wilson remarks that the exploits in Afghanistan were glorious and true, but that we lost by not staying and helping to rebuild Iraq-I mean, Afghanistan.

Veterans of Deceit?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:26:00 EST

Vet and columnist Ralph Peter has more to say about the New York Times statistically-unjustified portrait of veterans as homicidal maniacs:

"The Times is trying to make you fear our veterans (Good Lord, if your daughter marries one, she's bound to be beaten to death!). And to convince you that our military would be a dreadful place for your sons and daughters, a death-machine that would turn them into incurable psychopaths."

Big Fat Government

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:42:00 EST

"Just how bad has the start of this millennium been for budget hawks?" IWF's Carrie Lukas asks in a piece on National Review today. The answer is pretty bad. Government spending has skyrocketed since 1999:

"There are understandable reasons for some of the increase in our budget: Most notably, America's population has grown - though not nearly as fast as spending. The total population in 1999 was 273 million; today it's 304 million. Yet the federal government now spends about $9,000 per person, nearly $3,000 more than was spent in 1999. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are part of the reason for the federal budget's tremendous growth, but domestic spending has also been on the rise: Non-defense discretionary spending grew by more than a third in real terms since 1999.

"Imagine if Washington had grown only at the rate of inflation plus population growth since 1999. Not only would America have no federal deficit, but we would have hundreds of billions of dollars of surplus. Even if politicians had merely held the line on non-defense discretionary spending, our deficit would be nearly $100 billion lower.

"Policymakers can justify some of the additional spending as necessary in the post-911 world. But just as surely as we've needed investments in homeland security and intelligence, plenty of the federal budget has deserved cuts. And let's be honest: Returning to 1999 spending wouldn't exactly be a journey to Spartan frugality. The Citizens for Government Waste found $12 billion of pork that year, which would have been a good place to start the trimming."

A ROSE FOR BANITA JACKS' GIRLS

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:49:00 EST

There are so many questions to ask in the bizarre case of Banita Jacks.

If you have been following her story in the Washington Post, you know that, when U.S. marshals showed up to serve an eviction notice at her rental house at Sixth Street, SE, they discovered the badly decomposed corpses of her four children.

Ms. Jacks appears to have murdered the girls and continued living with their bodies. According to the Washington Post, authorities allege that Ms. Jacks ceased feeding the girls, aged 5 to 16. The oldest, Brittany Jacks, who would have been 17 last week, appears to have been stabbed in addition to starved, while Aja Fogle, the youngest, also may have been strangled and hit on the head. Apparently, when bodies are in such deplorable conditions, it's hard to be certain.

What nightmare went on inside that house? Why didn't at least one of the girls make an escape and tell somebody?

A story in the Post "Style" section raised questions as to why none of the neighbors did anything about the stench coming from the Jacks house. Coupled with the failure of the girls to appear, it was pretty good evidence of something very bad.

As usual, when children are maimed or lost, questions are raised about the child welfare agencies that should have protected them. Mayor Adrian Fenty is firing six welfare workers, including a division head, for bungling the case.

According to the mayor, a social worker told hotline operators that she was not allowed in the house when she went to check on Brittany, who had missed more than a month of classes at Booker T. Washington Public Charter School. "[Ms. Jacks] said she's not allowing her to go to school because she didn't want her to run away . . . she's a hostage in the home," the social worker said. The social worker saw two or three younger children in the house, looking unkempt. This was in April. There was still time to save at least several of the girls.

A Child and Family Services social worker visited the house twice after this, and no one answered the door. The case was closed by Child and Family Services after a report that the family had moved to Maryland to live with relatives. They did not bother to try to confirm the report. The case was handled badly.

Yes, of course, heads should roll, as they often do when children die. It was an abominable performance. People behaved in incredibly lazy and irresponsible ways. It's always the same story when children are murdered: the relevant welfare agency has failed, often because welfare agents did not visit the family or foster parents, or, if they did, didn't follow up. I have no sympathy for them. But I can't help thinking that such lapses are inevitable. Government, when you get right down to it, wasn't designed to bring up children. We need to come up with a better way.

What about the two grandmothers, who are now planning funerals? Didn't anybody in either of the two paternal families of the girls worry about them enough to get in touch before it became funeral-planning time? Wasn't there a kindly aunt or uncle who cared enough to see if the girls were all right? The newspaper reports that Jacks' "longtime companion" and father to several of the girls had died a year ago. A longtime companion is not a husband, and right there some of the societal web that children of married parents have to depend upon was lost.

Banita Jacks had become a single mother at the age of 16 and, as the Post describes it in singularly non-judgmental language, "eventually dependent on public assistance, she spent years tangled in court cases, seeking financial support from the fathers of two of her girls. She lifted herself up for a time -- learned a skill, cosmetology. With a new boyfriend, and two more daughters, she seemed happy, doting on her girls. Then she plunged into poverty and homelessness."

A new boyfriend may make her "happy" for a while, allowing her to dote on her girls, but without a marriage and responsibilities, a woman with four children is almost always going to end up "plunged" in poverty and homelessness. It seems obvious that Ms. Jacks had severe mental problems-but with a family in the traditional sense, people with mental illnesses used to survive in the past. Welfare pretty much puts the unfortunate children of such relationships into the tentacles of "the system" rather than somebody who cares about them.

When the Jacks story first appeared, I thought of Faulkner's gruesome short story "A Rose for Emily." In it, Emily, a well-bred spinster, poisons a traveling salesman and places him in her bed, where he remains for years. The townspeople also smelled the odor of death and did nothing about it. Emily said she'd poisoned a rat. But she had taken pains to select a traveling salesman, somebody whose absence would be harder for her neighbors to notice. But these, the Jacks daughters, were children. What kind of society misplaces its children?

Charlotte Hays is senior editor at the Independent Women's Forum.

The Coming Matriarchy?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:16:00 EST

Our radical feminist friends have long raged about "the patriarchy." But now Jonathan Rauch studies demographics, especially with regard to college degrees, and proposes that we're headed for matriarchy.

In a piece on "The Coming American Matriarchy: The Fairer Sex Gets Ready to Take Over," Rauch evaluates the well-known phenomenon of women now outnumbering men in college. What does it mean? Rauch notes:

"According to census data, a higher share of women than men already work in management and professional jobs (37 percent versus 31 percent, in 2005). ...

"Women's superior education will increase their earning power relative to men's, and on average they will be marrying down, educationally speaking. A third of today's college-bound 12-year-old girls can expect to "settle" for a mate without a university diploma. But women will not stop wanting to be hands-on moms. ...

"Look, then, for rising pressure on government to provide new parental subsidies and child care programs, and on employers to provide more flextime and home-office options -- among various efforts to help women do it all. Look, too, for a cascading series of psychological and emotional adjustments as American society tilts, for the first time, toward matriarchy. What happens to male self-esteem when men are No. 2 (and not necessarily trying harder)? When more men work for women than the other way around? ...

"Many tradition-minded cultures in the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Asia already regard the Western economic and social model as emasculating. Radical Islam, in particular, abhors feminism. As the United States and Europe continue to feminize, will the anti-modern backlash, already deeply problematic in the Muslim world, intensify? As sex roles and expectations diverge, might hostility and misunderstanding mount between the West and the rest?

"No, men are not about to disappear into underclass status. They will not become mothers anytime soon, and they will not stop secreting testosterone. Men's ambition will ensure ample male representation at the very top of the social order, where CEOs, senators, Nobelists, and software wunderkinds dwell. Women will not rule men.

"But they will lead. Think about this: Not only do girls study harder and get better grades than boys; high school girls now take more math and science than do high school boys. If there is a ‘weaker sex,' it isn't female."

It would be a pity if economic gains by women translated into bigger government. A second observation: Krista Kafer did an excellent paper for the IWF on taking the boy-crisis in education seriously. She puts forward reasons why fewer young men are college-bound and what can be done about this.

The Wacko-Vet

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:30:00 EST

The myth of the wacko-vet has been beloved of the left since Vietnam. A recent piece in the New York Times propagated the notion that vets are violent. John J. DiIulio reports on the report in the latest issue of the Weekly Standard:

"IN A PAGE-ONE STORY published Sunday, January 13, 2008, ‘Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles,' the New York Times reported on homicides by veterans of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Seven Times reporters contributed to the lengthy story, which was co-authored by Deborah Sontag and Lizette Alvarez.

"The Times ‘found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war.' All but one case involved male veterans. They speculated that their research ‘most likely uncovered only the minimum number of such cases, given that not all killings' were ‘reported publicly or in detail,' and because ‘it was often not possible to determine the deployment history of other service members arrested on homicide charges.'"

The Times aces forgot to do one obvious thing, though: compare rates of vet violence with those of the general public. If you do this, you discover that vets are actually less violent than the public at large:

"And assuming 121 cases and 749,932 total discharges, the homicide offending rate for the discharged veterans would be 16.1 per 100,000. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has demographic data aplenty on homicide offending rates. For instance, in 2005, for white males aged 18-24, the rate was about 20 per 100,000. The Times opined that 121 was the "minimum" number, even as it counted veterans charged but not convicted with veterans tried and found guilty. Doubling the number to 242 would double the rate to 32.2 per 100,000. ...

"The ‘Deadly Echoes' story spotlighted an important issue and sensitively profiled several tragic incidents. In many respects it was a model piece of journalism. But, in such a lengthy report, the Times should have done more to put its 121 cases against a broader data backdrop or two, been clearer about what nobody really knows about the subject, and taken much greater care than it did to avoid echoing what the VFW, in a 2006 story referenced by the reporters, rightly rejected as the ‘wacko-vet' myth."

Liberating the Hardware Store

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:29:00 EST

Just in case you missed it, Kay Hymowitz had a good piece in Friday's Wall Street Journal on the latest incursion into a previously all-male bastion:

While Hillary Clinton attempts to storm the Oval Office, some of her less renowned sisters are busy liberating one of the few other remaining male strongholds: the hardware store. Strange as it sounds in a country still steeped in Tim Allen reruns, gals are becoming fix-it guys.

"It's not hard to see what's driving the fad: Women are increasingly home alone and emboldened. Perhaps the largest group eager to seize the pink hammer is single young women. Many of today's young women are marrying well into their 20s; an increasing number are waiting until their 30s. But they often aren't waiting for that gold band before they commit to a house or condo. The National Association of Realtors reports that in 2006 single women made up 22% of the U.S. real-estate market; the median age for first-time single female buyers was 32. It helps that having grown up with computers, cellphones and iPods, this you-go-girl! generation doesn't look at small machinery the way Barbie looked at math. These women are not only gung-ho about buying a home on their own dime; they're ready to lay the tile and patch the drywall too."

Wellesley Feminists Split

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:53:00 EST

Did you think that Wellesley would be a bastion of support for its most famous alumna?

Interestingly, the Washington Post reports that the feminist vote at the prestigious women's college is split:

"Everybody who knows me thinks of me as a feminist," Keller said. "Nobody imagined I wouldn't vote for Clinton."

"Three weeks ago, Keller changed her online profile to announce her support for Obama. She likes his rhetoric and his stance on the war, she said, and she considers his effort to become the first black president as historic as Clinton's bid. Within a few days, a handful of Wellesley friends had called or e-mailed to teasingly call her a traitor.

"‘It's like I'm ruining this great opportunity for women by not voting for her, but honestly I'm not too worried about that,' Keller said. ‘I don't think gender is a good enough reason on its own to vote for or against anybody. I'm sure there are going to be other women in my generation, soon, who are able to run for president. This isn't like our only chance.'

"Her stance is what some professors on campus refer to as an ‘inevitability attitude,' and they say it marks a generational divide. Women who experienced Wellesley in the 1950s and '60s, such as Clinton, enrolled at a time when some schools still refused to admit women. They believed, intrinsically, that they would have to scrap and claw for every opportunity in an unfair world. Wellesley functioned as their cocoon, a place for camaraderie and support before they were sent off as graduates to break barriers and challenge stereotypes. As feminists, they were linked by a cause."

If the campus feminists are split, older alums may be more solidly behind Hillary:

"My mom didn't like hearing me talk about Obama much at all," Neff said. "She started telling me about how our generation takes for granted a lot of advances that women have made. She told me what it was like in the '70s and '80s and, you know, the general feeling that you were never as good or as important as your brothers or the men who you worked with. She talked about how women's stakes are so tied up in Hillary's candidacy, and how it could change what it means to be a woman and what all these little girls will think is possible in their own lives."

The R-Word

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:52:00 EST

We hear a lot about the R-word these days. What would a recession mean? A good piece from Fox Business explains:

With fewer people working, we can expect income growth to stall. In the 1981-82 downturn, average weekly earnings fell in six of the 16 recession months; in 1990-91, average weekly earnings fell in four of the eight months as it did in 2001.With lower incomes comes a cutback in spending. So far, that's all bad news. But spending cutbacks and reduced income means businesses are limited in their ability to pass along any increases in expenses in the form of higher prices. Indeed, to move goods off of shelves, businesses are more likely to reduce prices - and inflation.

That's what happened in the 1981-82 recession and the 2001 recession: consumer price index inflation in 1981-82 went from 10.8% to 3.8% over the course of the downturn; in 2001 inflation went from 3.0% to 1.6%. (In 1990-91, inflation at the end of the recession was 4.8% as it had been at the onset.)

Indeed, over the course of all of the last three recessions, "real" earnings - that is earnings adjusted for inflation - went from being negative to positive as inflation ebbed. That's the silver lining in the cloudy economy and reflects the basic coordinating force of the economy, of any free-market economy: the price system. Simply put, that means prices adjust to consumer demands and it is those adjustments which will provide the basis for the economic recovery. As prices drift downward and commodities become more affordable, consumer spending will increase. The increase in consumer spending, over time, leads to an increase in industrial production - to restock those shelves - improving corporate profits leading to increased employment and improved earnings, and so forth as the economic cycle goes on.

There are a couple of things which may complicate a quick recovery including a sharp run-up in consumer debt and a slippage in home values which cuts into the ability of debt-laden homeowners to tap into home equity to pay off credit card debts. That may be even more difficult as bank regulators urge banks to tighten lending standards.

There will be pain for those who lose jobs during and because of the recession or recession-like environment, and the burden will fall to those who remain employed who will benefit from the lower prices. And it is just that benefit which will help us out of a recession in an economy dominated by consumers who will have the opportunity to play hero!

An Unusual Book by a Conservative Commentator...

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:15:00 EST

J.D. Salinger, whose Catcher in the Rye helped create the boomer generation, once defined sentimentality as loving something more than God loves it. I think it's often a good idea of pet owners to remind themselves of this dictum. That said, as a pet's owner (really, I am more owned by my pet, a self-assured feline), I want to tout Kathryn Jean Lopez's interview with Mark Levin about new his book, Rescuing Sprite:

"Sprite - whom the Levins had to have put to sleep only about a year ago, because of his age and severely declining health - left a legacy all right, thanks to the love of a grateful man with access to a publisher.

"Rescuing Sprite is both a testament to Mark's bargaining skills and the depth of his ailing heart. The book is the honest and beautiful story of a man and his family and the dog they rescued - a dog who brought them great joy during his two years with them.

"His publisher wanted Mark, a successful nationally syndicated conservative radio talk-show host and lawyer, former Reagan Justice Department official, and NRO contributor, to do another book, a political book, a book more along the lines of his 2005 bestseller Men in Black, on judicial activism. Only if I can write about Sprite, he said. And so he did - his memorial is a hit in England, and soon to be published in Italy, Brazil, and the Czech Republic as well.

"And don't let the fact that Mark's a conservative keep you from picking up a copy of the book for your liberal brother. In Rescuing Sprite, Mark offers a gift that crosses party lines - a tribute to man's best friend and an appreciation for the gift of unconditional love and protection of innocents."

Dalrymple on the Roots of Poverty

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:32:00 EST

Because I live in a beautiful old apartment building in Adams Morgan, a Washington, D.C. neighborhood as dependably leftwing as, say, Berkeley in California, I am surrounded by lefties, most of them quite pleasant. I had dinner with a group of neighbors the other night. Some of them professed a desire to go to New Orleans and help "the poor" there. A fundamentally decent impulse, but something disturbed me about this. I suggested that one of the problems is that we've already done a lot to help "the poor" develop bad habits. I think that Theodore Dalrymple is disturbed by the same thing in the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas' otherwise admirable concern for those at the bottom of the economic ladder:

"What Habermas fails to recognize is that self-destruction-which he correctly implies has reached epidemic proportions among a segment of the population-grows out of attitudes to life, beliefs, and mentalities; it is not a mechanical response to a mechanical problem. And one of the beliefs that favors self-destruction is that no alternative to it is possible, because the world is so constituted, at least until the people's saviors gain power, that one's choices make no difference to the course of one's life."

Capitalism = Bad

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:40:00 EST

For those of you who've had it up to here on politics, a great piece in Foreign Affairs magazine has a scary piece on something that underpins policy: the anti-capitalist values being inculcated in children in Europe:

"illions of children are being raised on prejudice and disinformation. Educated in schools that teach a skewed ideology, they are exposed to a dogma that runs counter to core beliefs shared by many other Western countries. They study from textbooks filled with a doctrine of dissent, which they learn to recite as they prepare to attend many of the better universities in the world. Extracting these children from the jaws of bias could mean the difference between world prosperity and menacing global rifts. And doing so will not be easy. But not because these children are found in the madrasas of Pakistan or the state-controlled schools of Saudi Arabia. They are not. Rather, they live in two of the world's great democracies-France and Germany."

Forget What We Learned about the Woman Voter in Iowa

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:37:00 EST

The women are back. As commentary has noted, including this piece on Townhall, Hillary regained the women in New Hampshire:

"Of the two parties' victors in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Hillary Rodham Clinton did better than she had last week in Iowa among women, independents and late deciders. On the Republican side, John McCain _ who had campaigned sparingly in Iowa _ soared among virtually all categories, dwarfing chief rival Mitt Romney on experience, authenticity and others."

Hillary's Tears

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:00:00 EST

Londonistan author Melanie Phillips isn't as a rule a funny writer, but the misfortunes of Hillary Clinton seem to have brought out an unknown side of the solemn Brit scribe:

"In the Telegraph, Toby Harnden tells us that women are deserting Hillary in droves and are swooning over Obama instead. Poor old Hillary has made a major miscalculation. She assumed that because she was a woman - and a feminist to boot - she could take the women's vote for granted. Stuck in the seventies mindset, she failed to realise that today men are the new women."

The video of Senator Clinton choking up is fascinating-when Edmund Muskie supposedly shed tears in New Hampshire, he was irreparably damaged. But in Senator Clinton's case it was, as they say, humanizing. Hearts of stone elsewhere don't agree. (This site also has the video.)

Respect for Patraeus

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 19:44:00 EST

As Michael Goldfarb, the Weekly Standard's ace blogger points out, the surge looks like a success from the other side of the street. Goldfarb quotes an Agence France-Press article that contains this lament from an insurgent:

"The occupation forces seized the opportunity (the conflict between al-Qaeda and Sunni insurgents) and supported the Awakening to help the troop 'surge' strategy of (President George W.) Bush," said Shimmari.

Goldfarb asks:

"When was the last time a Democrat credited (or accused, more likely) American forces for seizing an opportunity? Petraeus gets more respect from insurgents than he does from the Democratic party. Of course, they're the one's who get to see him in action. The Democrats will have to wait until 2012, at least, for their turn."

They Can't Handle the Truth

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 18:22:00 EST

The 1990s are widely viewed as a vacation from history. The terrorists staged some smaller, preview attacks-and we did nothing. It appears to me that some would like another holiday. Sometimes I wonder if that's the "change" so many people want-a concentration on domestic issues and a looking away from the world. On the other hand, Fred Barnes notes that in the Democratic candidate debates, even good news from the world at large is eschewed:

"THERE'S A TRUTH THE Democratic presidential candidates can't handle: the success of the ‘surge' in Iraq. The addition of American troops and the adoption of a new strategy of protecting the civilian population has now dramatically reduced the level of violence in Baghdad and pacified other parts of Iraq as well. But the Democratic candidates insist on pretending otherwise.

"It isn't clear whether they were uninformed, out of touch, mistaken, politically fearful, or knowingly dishonest when they were asked to comment on the surge during an ABC television debate Saturday night in New Hampshire. In any case, their refusal to acknowledge success in Iraq marked a low point in the Democratic campaign."

The Times They Are A-Changing

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:08:00 EST

The upsets in Iowa have almost made us forget about the women's vote. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton, as I previously noted in passing, didn't get women-Obama did.

Terrence Jeffrey put up an analysis of the female vote that noted:

"In Iowa ...the fact that Clinton could become the first female president did not persuade female Democratic voters to support her.

"According to the television networks' entrance poll of 2,136 voters attending the Democratic presidential caucuses last Thursday evening, Obama beat Clinton among all female voters 35% to 30%. (See results here.)

"The same poll indicated that Clinton beat Obama among married women 32% to 30%, but that Obama beat her by a larger margin among unmarried women who made up a larger share of the vote. Married women comprised only 29% of Democratic caucus goers.

"Obama, meanwhile, defeated Clinton 36% to 25% among the 71% of caucus voters who were either unmarried women or males, according to the entrance poll."

What is fascinating is that going into Iowa, Clinton appeared to have a lock on the women's vote. What happened?

Jeffrey's analysis:

"The dramatic last-minute shift of female Democratic primary voters toward Obama could be driven by the perception among these voters that Obama is more likely than Clinton to effect ‘change,' as well as the growing belief among New Hampshire Democratic voters in general that Obama is more electable than Clinton.

"‘Politically, unmarried women drive the mood for change in this country,' Greenberg, Quinlan Rosner said in their October 31 report. ‘Seventy-eight percent of the cohort believes the country is on the wrong track.'"

While it's refreshing that women aren't voting on the basis of identity politics, "change," unless defined as something other than a mantra, is probably not the best reason to vote for a candidate either.

The World Turned Upside Down

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:44:00 EST

What a night! So many things happened. The word historic may not be too strong for Senator Barack Obama's victory. Not only is Ms. Clinton no longer inevitable, Obama is the first black candidate to win the Iowa caucus-and it wasn't a squeaker. Mike Huckabee's win was huge, proving that one of the men he'll face in New Hampshire, John McCain, didn't need to enact McCain-Feingold, his controversial campaign finance reform after all-Huckabee beat a man who has bottomless coffers on a shoe string. (Byron York explains how Huckabee did this.)

It was clear when subdued Hillary strategist Mark Penn appeared on Fox hours before the caucusing began that he knew something he wasn't saying: that Hillary wasn't going to win Iowa. Just for the record, female voters in Democratic caucuses flocked to Obama, though older ones skewed to Hillary. I think this puts paid to Penn's contention that women will vote Clinton because she is a woman. Message: Don't assume gender politics will take Ms. Clinton to the White House.

"We wanted exciting, we got exciting," writes Peggy Noonan. She writes that Obamtook "took mama to school" and credits Huckabee with the "best guileless pose in modern politics." Huckabee's victory is in part the revenge of the religious right that the GOP has often taken for granted:

"They have been bruised and offended by the rigid, almost militant secularism and multiculturalism of the public schools; they reject those schools' squalor, in all senses of the word. They believe in God and family and America. They are populist: They don't admire billionaire CEOs, they admire husbands with two jobs who hold the family together for the sake of the kids; they don't need to see the triumph of supply-side thinking, they want to see that suffering woman down the street get the help she needs.

"They believe that Mr. Huckabee, the minister who speaks their language, shares, down to the bone, their anxieties, concerns and beliefs. They fear that the other Republican candidates are caught up in a million smaller issues--taxing, spending, the global economy, Sunnis and Shia--and missing the central issue: again, our culture. They are populists who vote Republican, and as I have read their letters, I have felt nothing but respect."

"The biggest surprise of the campaign so far is the success of candidates with minimal credentials and little if any experience in national governance," writes Michael Barone. Barone suggests that voters have sixteen year itch and offers this key to understanding why there is so much gloom amid our reasonably good economic situation: "Polling suggests that voters' assessments of the economy are rooted more in partisan loyalties than in observation of economic conditions. Republicans complained about the robust economy when Mr. Clinton was president. Democrats have complained about the robust economy most of the time George W. Bush has been in office."

Iowa and the World...

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:04:00 EST

It's interesting that Iowa's two big winners may be the weakest candidates on foreign policy. Inspired by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, William Shawcross, the English journalist, has a column that makes points worth pondering as we go forward with the process of selecting the country's next leader.

It is especially deserving of a read from those who indulge in what Shawcross calls the "luxury" of believing that Islamic jihadists attacked us because of something we did. No, and there's only one thing we can do to defeat them (hint: it's not being nicer).

Shawcross writes:

"Bernard-Henri Lévy, the French philosopher, points out that with Benazir Bhutto, they killed ‘a spectacularly visible woman' who, whatever her flaws as a political leader, was astonishingly brave in fighting - uncovered, unveiled - for politics ‘and refusing the curse that, according to the new fascists [the jihadists], floats over the human face of women'.

"Lévy suggests that Benazir's name should now become another password ‘for those who still believe that the good genius of Enlightenment will win out over the evil genius of fanaticism and crime'. But the Enlightenment will be lost unless we all realise that we have to fight for it....

"Maysoon al-Damluji, a brave Iraqi woman who returned from London exile after the overthrow of Saddam to help build a decent society, put it well recently. ‘Both al-Qa'eda and Iran are working to create the most dangerous culture that humanity has ever known,' she said. ‘It is based on hatred and ignorance and manifests itself through suppressing all kinds of freedoms, especially on women. If, God forbid, the American forces withdrew, mayhem would strike Iraq; it would spill out to the entire region and no country in the Middle East would be spared.' She is right. And not just for the Middle East."

Think about this when you're deciding who will be the best president of the United States.

Blogging Heads: Is the surge working? Is George Bush a Grown-up?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:10:00 EST

Blogging Heads: IWF's Charlotte Hays takes on L.A. Times columnist Rosa Brooks. It's quite a conversation! View the clip in its entirety at Bloggingheads.tv.