It would not do as much to shift control over insurance to workers. They would have to stay in their jobs to keep their existing plans. But it would cut costs and help people the tax code now pushes out of insurance markets. And it would do so, critically, without threatening the insurance arrangements of the satisfied majority. Over time, this reform could help the individual market grow and become more attractive to more Americans. Voters might then become receptive to relaxed restrictions on using the tax credit to exit the employer market.

Three stories show us what "diversity" and "toleration" often mean to the religious Left, and to the bureaucratic powers that be:

In sunny California:

Chuck and Stephanie Fromm already have been fined $300 for holding Bible studies for their friends at their home, and they face the potential for additional fines of $500 for each study held, according to a legal team taking their case to court.

The newest conflict over Bible studies in homes in America arose in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., where city officials say city code section 9-3.301 prohibits religious organizations in residential neighborhoods without a conditional-use permit, a sometimes very expensive procedure.

Meanwhile at Vanderbilt University:

Vanderbilt University's Office of Religious Life quietly deferred its annual approval of several mostly conservative Christian organizations.

Groups affected included the Christian Legal Society, InterVarsity and the graduate chapter of Campus Crusade. These organizations face an uncertain future because of a new policy that prohibits religious organizations from requiring that their leaders share the same beliefs and goals of the organizations they seek to lead. The policy goes one step further by hamstringing Bible studies.

According to a letter from the acting director of the Office of Religious Life, Bible studies are suspect because they "would seem to indicate that officers are expected to hold certain beliefs.'' The letter goes on to explain: "Vanderbilt policies do not allow this expectation/qualification for officers.''

(Thanks to Phi-Beta-Cons )

Meanwhile, Drudge posted this story, about a boy who was suspended from school for saying that homosexuality is immoral.

Ford's new commercial might represent a cultural milestone.

"Chris," the character in the commercial, does not want to buy a car from a company that the government has bailed out.  Moreover, Chris attacks the basic idea of the entitlement state when he says "that's what America's about."  We try our best. "When you fail, you've got to pick yourself up, and go back to work." 

Behind the veil of ignorance, an American wants the opportunity to succeed or fail on his own merits.  That implies that failure has real consequences.  Hence the strictures against bailouts.

Since the 1960s, when commercials touched political themes they have tended to reflect Lefty themes, since, as a rule, Progressivism has had chic cachet.  That has not always been the case, but it has been the general rule.  But this commercial goes after the bailout state.

"To succeed, a paradigm of "invade, reconstruct, and transform," requires the decisive defeat, disarmament, and political isolation of the enemy; the demoralization of its population; the destruction of its political ethos; and the presence, at the end of hostilities, of overwhelming force. In Iraq and Afghanistan none of these conditions was fulfilled, the opposite impression flowing mainly from our contacts predominantly with an expressive, Western-educated elite, and from our failure to understand that despite the universal desire for freedom, equity, safety, honor, and prosperity, the operational definitions of each of these objectives can vary so much as to render the quality of universality meaningless."

From Minding the Campus:

First-years are being pressured to sign a "Freshman Pledge" committing them to create a campus "where the exercise of kindness holds a place on a par with intellectual attainment" -- all in the name of "upholding the values of the College" including "inclusiveness and civility."

Why do universities think they are doing minorities a favor by these policies?  The Center for Equal Opportunity strikes again, this time against grotesque racial disparities the University of Wisconsin undergraduate and law school admissions process:

The odds ratio favoring African Americans and Hispanics over whites was 576-to-1 and 504-to-1, respectively, using the SAT and class rank while controlling for other factors. Thus, the median composite SAT score for black admittees was 150 points lower than for whites and Asians, and the Latino median SAT score was 100 points lower. Using the ACT, the odds ratios climbed to 1330-to-1 and 1494-to-1, respectively, for African Americans and Hispanics over whites.

For law school admissions, the racial discrimination found was also severe, with the weight given to ethnicity much greater than given to, for example, Wisconsin residency. Thus, an out-of-state black applicant with grades and LSAT scores at the median for that group would have had a 7 out 10 chance of admission and an out-of-state Hispanic a 1 out of 3 chance--but an in-state Asian with those grades and scores had a 1 out of 6 chance and an in-state white only a 1 out of 10 chance.

CEO chairman Linda Chavez noted: "This is the most severe undergraduate admissions discrimination that CEO has ever found in the dozens of studies it has published over the last 15 years."

The studies can be downloaded on PDFs from the linked site.   UW's lame response here.

From John Adams, Defence of the Constitutions:

Such severe frugality, such perfect disinterestedness in public characters, appear only, or at least most frequently, in aristocratical governments. Whenever the constitution becomes democratical, such austerities disappear entirely, or at least lose their influence, and the suffrages of the people; and if an unmixed and unchecked people ever choose such men, it is only in times of distress and danger, when they think no others can save them. As soon as the danger is over, they neglect these, and choose others more plausible and indulgent.

Two Claremonsters, Bill Voegeli and Tom West, reflect on the meaning of 9/11.  Our NLT colleague Bill recalls the evacuations he and his fellow New Yorkers stoically endured.  Tom West always fights for the wisdom of the founders: 

My first reaction to the attack was anger -- certainly against the terrorists, but also against our government. The FAA disarmed pilots in 1987. Passengers and crew were ordered to submit quietly to hijackers' demands. In the name of safety, government banned the very thing that could have prevented the murder of thousands: the Founders' agenda of self-help, self-defense, and gun rights.

Their brief observations can be found at the end of this link on NRO.

Jimmy Hoffa fights to preserve the fiefdom that his father created. 

"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war," Jimmy Hoffa Jr. said to a heavily union crowd.

"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added.

Some people are saying that we really don't know how to make the economy grow.  I'm sympathetic to the idea, but I also suspect that some, specific steps would help.  In particular, how about a regularory holiday?

Amity Shlaes suggest suspending the Wagner Act for two years.  What I didn't realize until reading her post is that a majority of Americans, including a majority of union members, support Right to Work legislation. (Update: here's more polling data on this subject). 

How about suspending many restrictions on drilling for oil off our coasts, and in Alaska?

Would dropping the minimum wage to $5.00 for people under 25 help lower unemployment? (And should it be 26, in honor of Obamacare?)

Suspending part of the Americans with Disabilities act, or simply restricting its application to people who suffer from serious physical disabilities, would probably help corporate America focus on business rather than lawsuit avoidance.

I bet there are many other regulations the absense of which would help the economy grow.  And I haven't even mentioned market friendly health reforms, like allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines.

From a certain perspective, many of our regulations are luxury items. Only a very rich nation can afford them. Thanks to globalization, that might be changing.

Update. Let's not forget the business impact of California's tendency to favor animals over people:

Now, largely at the behest of greens, California agriculture is being systematically cut down by regulation. In an attempt to protect a small fish called the Delta smelt, upward of 200,000 acres of prime farmland have been idled, according to the state's Department of Conservation. Even in the current "wet" cycle, California's agricultural industry, which exports roughly $14 billion annually, is slowly being decimated. Unemployment in some Central Valley towns tops 30 percent, and in cases even 40 percent.

Professor Robert George of Princeton will moderate and question the South Carolina GOP candidates forum.  He is a man of rare substance and grace, who can get to the heart of the matter with few words.  (Read the profile on him in the NY Times Sunday Magazine--damning him with faint praise:  "the reigning brain of the Christian right.")  Having precepted for him years ago at Princeton, I can attest to his ability to get skeptical students to consider questions they would never have thought about otherwise.  If the forum gets boring, I hope Robby pulls out his banjo....

H/t Michael Krauss.

Other candidate forums should consider such non-traditional talent (get the press out of there!):  Peter Schramm of Ashbrook, Larry Arnn of Hillsdale, Brian Kennedy of the Claremont Institute--each could perform such a role superbly and enrich political discussion for not only Republicans but for the general public as well.

I visited Montana a few months ago and was struck by the scenic beauty, but I seem to have missed one local treasure: a recreation of the Shire from J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.

There are fans ... and then there are fans.

H/t: Debby Witt at NRO.

Apparently, I overstated Obama's compromise on economically-destructive EPA standards. He hasn't withdrawn them, as originally reported by the media, but merely postponed them until January 2013 - that is, until just after the election.

I'd say this posturing certifies the compromise as a purely political stunt - meaning that Obama hasn't learned anything and is still as determined as ever to wreck the economy on behalf of ridiculous liberal policies.

Iain Murray has a precise summary at NRO.

I mentioned below that Obama is setting the stage for his jobs speech by lowering expectations and burying substantive analysis. I forgot to mention the third leg of his preparation: blaming others.

Obama is launching a series of lawsuits against big banks for their role in causing the recession. Whether these banks misrepresented the quality of bundled mortgage securities is a fair question, but Obama's purpose is certainly to frame a scapegoat toward which he can attempt to deflect criticism. Watch for it in his speech. It's not his unprecedented spending, lack of economic proficiency or anti-business regulations which are to blame for the continuing recession - it's the fault of the big, bad banks. (See if he is also able to subtly and indirectly blame the whole thing on Bush.)

Obama has set the stage for a truly meritless campaign speech.

So much for the "recovery summer." The White House now expects unemployment to remain above 9% throughout the election cycle. "Unemployment will not return to the 5 percent range until 2017," according to the WH budget office.

This is not news in the substance, but rather in the willingness of the White House to belatedly admit the obvious. By their continuing coverage of economic conditions as "surprising," "unexpected" and "worse than predicted," the media still haven't grasped reality.

All of this is pre-text for Obama's "jobs speech" later this week. Obama is trying to lower expectations. There should be no doubt that the speech will contain little to no substance. If it were otherwise, the White House wouldn't have dumped its Midsession Budget Review on a Friday afternoon. The MBR is a by-the-numbers forecast of the President's economic policy effects over the next few years. That is, it isn't a rhetorical campaign speech - so it isn't useful to Obama, who has no ideas to help the economy. This is the sense of the Senate Budget Committee, which clearly and concisely summarizes the President's MBR.

Obama has lost the initiative, and his speech will produce more scorn than relief. The GOP - particularly the candidates - need to step up and seize the moment. There is a vacuum of leadership in Washington waiting to be filled.

At least partly due to today's jobs report,

1. The President's Real Clear Politics average job approval rating will dip down to 40%.

2.  The Federal Reserve will announce a major open market operation later this month.  There will be a QE3 and it will be big.

3.  Unless congressional Republicans think they are politically bulletproof, there will be a deal to extend this year's payroll tax holiday for workers (which the Obama adminstration wants) coupled with some kind of business or investment tax cut for Republicans.  This could take of an employer-side payroll tax holiday.  The tax cuts will add several hudred billion dollars to next year's deficit.   

Today's major headline is that, for the first time since World War II, the economy had "precisely net zero jobs created for a month." And, following on the heels of this economic woe, is breaking news that Obama ordered the EPA to withdraw an environmental regulation that "would cost up to $1 trillion per year and kill thousands of jobs."

It's tempting to hope that Obama has finally learned a lesson, finally become aware of the real harm done to real people by job-killing, economically-ruinous regulations - which, while ostensibly related to environmentalism, are more precisely intended as fines and taxes on "evil" corporations. But, I suspect that Obama has simply been reading the tea leaves and has shrewdly begun "compromising" in order to compete for re-election.

This is the novel sign of practical political savvy from Obama, following years of ideological recklessness with public opinion. That is to say, Candidate Obama has re-emerged. He has finally taken a simple and obvious action intended to create (or, to use his own more exact language, "save") jobs. (These jobs, of course, are being saved from his own regulations, but let that pass....)

Too little, too late? Time will tell.

A new book, out today, questions the now conventional wisdom that Thomas Jefferson fathered illegitimate children through his slave Sally Hemings.  The board responsible for its publication includes such notables as Harvey Mansfield, Charles Kesler, James Ceaser, Paul Rahe, and Forrest McDonald and is chaired by UVA law professor Robert Turner.  Here's the amazon link.  The accusation should not have moderated devotion to Jefferson for his extraordinary achievements, though it could not have had any but that effect.  This book should help us readjust our vision of the man.  Jefferson celebrated enlightenment; let us follow in his footsteps on this accusation as well.

WaPo reports:

A proposal before the Securities and Exchange Commission would require publicly-traded companies to disclose political contributions. 

Aside from the annoyance of ever-greater regulation by the SEC, the disclosure of political contributions seems to be a more reasonable requirement. Stockholders have an interest in knowing the voluntary contributions made by the companies in which they share ownership.

But this leads to a potential problem in the Age of Obama. Ask yourself, why do unions oppose secret ballots? The answer has been made excessively clear since Obama's term began. Retribution is easier when you know your enemy's name.

Obama has proved himself to be a typical Chicago politician in this regard. He's not afraid to use muscle against those who get in his way. The SEC contribution list would be sorted by party affiliation and companies at the top of the "Republican" side would soon learn the reason you don't mess with Obama.

It's a sad commentary on the state of American democracy - but, alas, I cannot say it isn't true.

Huntsman seems not to have noticed that he has missed the boat. He's not a contender and - unlike other non-contenders such as Paul, Gingrich and Trump - adds nothing to the conversation.

His latest attempt to appeal to ... someone (I'm not exactly sure who) is a promise to strip the tax code of loopholes and deductions (which sounds a bit like Obama's promise to save entitlements and reduce debt by eliminating "government waste"). Of course, this alone is a promise to raise taxes. So Huntsman adds that he would adopt a simplified three-tier tax structure.

But the devil's in the details. I fear a "moderate" Huntsman tax compromise would cut deductions but do little in the way of lowering the overall tax rate - thereby effectively handing democrats a tax (increase) "compromise" victory. Huntsman's does not dissuade me of this uncertainty by the use of progressive rhetoric, identifying "special-interest" as the beneficiary of tax "carve-outs" and denouncing that liberal boogey-man, "corporate welfare."

Pope Benedict XVI yesterday repeated his invitation to experience God through the "via pulchritudinis" or "way of beauty," which "modern man should recover in its most profound meaning."

Perhaps it has happened to you at one time or another -- before a sculpture, a painting, a few verses of poetry or a piece of music -- to have experienced deep emotion, a sense of joy, to have perceived clearly, that is, that before you there stood not only matter -- a piece of marble or bronze, a painted canvas, an ensemble of letters or a combination of sounds -- but something far greater, something that "speaks," something capable of touching the heart, of communicating a message, of elevating the soul. 

A work of art is the fruit of the creative capacity of the human person who stands in wonder before the visible reality, who seeks to discover the depths of its meaning and to communicate it through the language of forms, colors and sounds. Art is capable of expressing, and of making visible, man's need to go beyond what he sees; it reveals his thirst and his search for the infinite. Indeed, it is like a door opened to the infinite, [opened] to a beauty and a truth beyond the every day. And a work of art can open the eyes of the mind and heart, urging us upward.

Benedict then turns to works of art that are inspired by, and reciprocally inspire, faith: Gothic cathedrals, Romanesque churches, sacred music, paintings, frescos, etc. He identifies an appreciation - a true, deeply felt appreciation - of beauty as a "way of prayer."   

Therefore, may our visits to places of art be not only an occasion for cultural enrichment -- also this -- but may they become, above all, a moment of grace that moves us to strengthen our bond and our conversation with the Lord, [that moves us] to stop and contemplate -- in passing from the simple external reality to the deeper reality expressed -- the ray of beauty that strikes us, that "wounds" us in the intimate recesses of our heart and invites us to ascend to God.

It's always worthwhile to be reminded of beauty and it's effects upon the soul. I find it in "The Virgin of the Rocks" and The Iliad. Peter Schramm finds it in Shakespeare and motorcycles. Wherever she finds you, follow her, for "beauty is life when life unveils her holy face."