The Carpenters Union is paying people — non-union people — to walk its picket lines. WSJ:

Billy Raye, a 51-year-old unemployed bike courier, is looking for work. Fortunately for him, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters is seeking paid demonstrators to march and chant in its current picket line…the union hires unemployed people at the minimum wage — $8.25 an hour — to walk picket lines…

“Low Pay! Go away!” and “That Rat Gotta Go!” the union stand-ins chanted as other workers banged cow-bells and beat on a trio of empty plastic buckets. Eric Williams, a 70-year-old retiree who said he needs extra cash to buy groceries, wore a sign saying that Can-Am Contractors, a nonunion Maryland drywall and ceiling concern, “does not pay area standard wages & benefits.”…

“For a lot of our members, it’s really difficult to have them come out, either because of parking or something else,” explains Vincente Garcia, a union representative who is supervising the picketing.

Speaking of parody, this is how the United States now addresses adversaries that pose existential threats to its allies. What a country!

ABC:

Speaking about the Uganda bombings, the president said, “What you’ve seen in some of the statements that have been made by these terrorist organizations is that they do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself. They see it as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains.”

What an odd lack of affect.

Washington Times:

Inspire, the 67-page glossy of photos and text is an online recruitment magazine for English-speaking jihadists. It’s the brainchild of U.S.-Yemeni radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki…Published by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the magazine offers messages from Osama bin Laden on “the way to save the earth,” from his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri to the “people of Yemen” and from Mr. al-Awlaki to “the American people and Muslims in the West.”

And it touts itself as the first magazine to be issued by al Qaeda in English…Mr. al-Awlaki himself, who was born in New Mexico, is fluent in English…Mr. al-Awlaki has been linked to various acts of terrorism directed against the U.S. by intelligence officials.

Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who is accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, in November, had been in contact with Mr. al-Awlaki before the massacre. Mr. al-Awlaki later described the attack as a “heroic act.”

The suspect in the Christmas Day bombing attempt, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and the suspect in the attempted car bombing at Times Square, Faisal Shahzad, also said they were inspired by Mr. al-Awlaki’s anti-American sermons.

Page 33: “Make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom.” That’s nice. However, we’re getting confused. Mr. al-Awlaki seems to be talking about religion, as did Mr. biin Laden in his declaration of war on the United States. But our government tells us that Jihad is a good thing. We just don’t know what to think anymore.

Tom Maguire has a good wrap-up on the debate. Why are we in Afghanistan? What would victory look like? If we can’t answer simply and clearly, why spend blood and treasure there (the number of US military deaths has doubled in the last 18 months)

Stanley McCrystal got out. Abdul Rahman got out. Why are we getting in deeper?

Byron York:

Lawmakers across Capitol Hill, both Democrats and Republicans, were surprised to learn recently that the Obama administration has made reaching out to Muslim nations a top priority for the space agency NASA. They will probably be more surprised to learn that administration officials told the Middle East news organization Al Jazeera about it before they told Congress…

Bolden told Al Jazeera that the “foremost” mission he had been given by Obama was “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”…So far, the story has gone unreported by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Whether you think the NASA story is important or not, it is certainly odd enough to be reported in the news outlets above. (Many interesting things have been written on the NASA story, including this and this.) Our own take is that Obama’s outreach program is a misplaced, but revealing, attempt to paper over perhaps the fundamental theological issue of our time with feel-good-ism.

It’s not the US that is getting tough on the “Supreme Leader” of Iran and his cohorts, it is the UAE, in remarks at the Aspen Ideas Festival, where Obama is getting a drubbing on issue after issue:

The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that the benefits of bombing Iran’s nuclear program outweigh the short-term costs such an attack would impose. In unusually blunt remarks, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba publicly endorsed the use of the military option for countering Iran’s nuclear program, if sanctions fail to stop the country’s quest for nuclear weapons.

“I think it’s a cost-benefit analysis,” Mr. al-Otaiba said. “I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion … there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what.”

“If you are asking me, ‘Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?,’ my answer is still the same: ‘We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.’ I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E.”…

The ambassador in the end stressed that his country would not tolerate a nuclear Iran. “The United States may be able to live with it,” he said. “We can’t.”

“The United States may be able to live with it” — that’s the UAE’s real concern and probably the reason for the unusually blunt public remarks. Sadly, the US seems more concerned that our own Voice of America not offend the mullahs.

David Deming leads us on a tour of technology, much of which was introduced by the barbarians of northern Europe — it is interesting that this humdrum world of technology was largely not the product of the great southern European societies, the classical Greeks and the Roman Empire. AT:

From the sixth through the ninth centuries AD, Europeans adopted new agricultural technologies that dramatically increased productivity. One of these innovations was a heavy wheeled plow that broke up the soil more efficiently than the Roman “scratch” plow. Formerly unproductive lands were transformed into arable cropland.

The Greeks and Romans had harnessed horses with a throat-and-girth harness that consisted of a strap placed across the animal’s neck. As soon as the horse began to pull, he would choke himself. In the ninth century, Europeans began to use a padded horse collar that transferred the load of a draught animal to its shoulders. Horses harnessed with collars were able to pull four to five times more weight than those with throat-and-girth harnesses.

Horse power was also facilitated by the introduction of the iron shoe. With fast-moving horses harnessed efficiently, it became possible to transport goods up to 35 kilometers in one day if a sufficiently good road was available. There was now a way to dispose of agricultural surpluses and create wealth that could be used for investment in technology and infrastructure. Thus the introduction of the lowly horse shoe and collar fostered commerce, civilization, and the growth of towns.

Under the Roman system of two-field crop rotation, half the land was left fallow and unproductive at any given time. In the eighth century, Europeans began to practice three-field crop rotation. Fields lay fallow for only a third of the year, and grains were alternated with legumes that enriched the soil with nitrogen. The cultivation of legumes such as peas and beans added valuable protein to European diets.

In the tenth century, the climate began to warm and Europe entered the High Middle Ages. By the thirteenth century, the new agricultural technologies had doubled per acre yields. Population surged; architecture and commerce flourished. Europeans began a program of aggressive territorial expansion. They reclaimed Sicily in 1090 and systematically drove Muslims out of Spain. The First Crusade was launched in 1095, and Jerusalem was captured from the Seljukian Turks in 1099.

The prosperity created by the new agricultural technologies subsidized education and the growth of knowledge. In the late eighth century, Charlemagne had revived education in Europe by setting up a general system of schools. For the first time, not just monks but the general public was educated. As the European economy prospered, students multiplied and traveled, seeking the best education they could find. Christian Cathedral Schools evolved into the first universities. The Universities of Paris and Oxford were founded c. 1170, Cambridge in 1209 AD.

The harnessing of water power began around 200 BC with the invention of the quern, a primitive grain mill consisting of two rotating stones. The Romans had been aware of water power, but made little use of water wheels and mills. In contrast, by the tenth century, Europeans had begun a wholesale conversion of their civilization from human and animal-power to water power. The water-mill came to be viewed not just as a grain mill, but as a generalized source of power that could be adopted for many uses. This new approach was to fundamentally alter the fabric of human civilization.

By the thirteenth century, water power was being utilized in sawmills, tanning mills, and iron forges. Mechanical power derived from moving water was used to process beer mash, to turn wood lathes and grinding stones, to power bellows, to drive forge hammers, and to manufacture paper.

Because water power was only available where streams were located, Europeans developed other sources of mechanical power. Tidal power was used in Dover and Venice in the eleventh century. The first windmill in Europe appeared in 1085 AD. Over the next hundred years, windmill technology spread rapidly over the plains of northern Europe.

We read some E. J. Dijksterhuis a long time ago (at least we were assigned the reading), but Deming’s concise overview is certainly easier to follow. And for those who say that going back is impossible, we offer the following: (a) once again the windmill is seen by some as a leap forward; and (b) the art of two-point perspective, developed in 5th century BC Greece, was apparently forgotten and absent from medieval art until it was rediscovered centuries later around the time of Giotto in Trecento Florence.

It has been about a year since the President’s speech in Cairo, with its odd and inaccurate revisions of history. And a year since he was photographed dissing Benjamin Netanyahu from the Oval Office. And a year since he said this: “if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” Actually, the US is the largest Christian country in the world, the largest Jewish country in the world after Israel, and number 52 among countries with Muslim populations — well behind Germany and France.

Why would an American President say such a thing? For a fellow whose life has been so much about concealment and the indirect gesture, there is a certain consistency to the man that becomes clear over time. You don’t have to believe in conspiracies to get an understanding of where his sentiments lie. You can just ask the guys who work for him on terrorism or at NASA for that matter.

Powerline:

Charles Bolden, head of NASA, tells Al Jazeera that the “foremost” task President Obama has given him is “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.” Thus, NASA’s primary mission is no longer to enhance American science and engineering or to explore space, but to boost the self-esteem of “predominantly Muslim nations.” Exploring space didn’t even make the top three things Obama wants Bolden to accomplish. The other two are “re-inspire children to want to get into science and math” and “expand our international relationships”

Help!

Stephen Schwartz went to a speech:

Rashad Hussain, America’s special envoy to the Organization for the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Saudi-based body formed in 1969 to “protect” Jerusalem from the Israelis, announced a new title this week for President Barack Obama. According to Hussain, Obama is America’s “Educator-in-Chief on Islam.”

Hussain so designated Obama in a keynote speech Wednesday, June 23, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The occasion was another “post-Cairo” conference, following on the event that welcomed Islamist ideologue Tariq Ramadan to Washington in April. Hussain also declared that Obama is “Educator-in-Chief” on the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, which has produced diplomatic and political events around the capital for some years. Hussain affirmed with satisfaction that presidential iftar dinners, where the fast is broken after sundown, and which had formerly been limited to diplomats from Muslim countries, now welcomed American Muslims from throughout society.

In his remarks, Hussain also congratulated Obama for sending Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser, to last year’s annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America, a notorious front for Saudi-financed Muslim radicalism. Worse, Hussain has now divulged that the U.S. will support the OIC in the latter’s United Nations effort to criminalize “defamation of religion” – widely perceived as a measure to suppress criticism of Muslim practices that violate human rights. “The OIC and the Obama administration will work together in the UN on the issue of defamation of religion”…

Obama has called for references to “Islamic terrorism” and “jihadism” to be expunged from the official vocabulary employed by his administration, and has pronounced last year’s Fort Hood massacre to be unrelated to Islam. As the president has assured the world, terrorism is anti-Islamic and the term “jihad” has been misused. Thus Obama presumes not only to act as “educator” on Islam to non-Muslim Americans, but to define the religion for its own adherents.

Hussain addressed his comments to an event assessing the impact of Obama’s Cairo speech. But Hussain employed a phrase that must have been chilling to those who heard in it an echo, saying “Islam is a solution” to the current global challenges emerging from Muslim ranks. A “post-Cairo” phrase indeed: “Islam is the solution” is the slogan of the radical Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood

Can’t get enough of the idea that jihad, properly understood, is a good thing. We’ve all gone through the looking glass. HT: Powerline

Michael Hastings’ article in Rolling Stone about Afghanistan and General Stanley McChrystal has gotten famous very quickly as a result of some on-and-off-the-record comments by McChrystal and his staff about people in the Obama administration. Since the first rule of being interviewed is to be clear about the rules of attribution, and since McChrytal is notorious for pushing limits and his attention to detail, it seems obvious enough that the General knew he was going to create a firestorm.

However, the ad hominem jabs at Joe Biden, Richard Holbrooke, Karl Eikenberry and Obama himself (only Hillary Clinton is singled out for praise), are in a way beside the point. Hastings’ article raises questions about the viability of a counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan when many in al Qaeda have picked up and moved across the border to Pakistan. The piece also notes that the highly restrictive rules of engagement are deeply unpopular with the troops on the ground — how long can that go on, particularly with an all-volunteer fighting force?

Hastings himself seems clearly to believe that the US has no vital strategic interest in being in Afghanistan. Be that as it may, his piece raises important questions. According to Hastings, the only effective conqueror of that screwed-up country was none other than Genghis Khan, whose idea of counter-insurgency strategy involved a lot of starved cities and heads on pikes.

Our guess is that McChrystal wants something and has chosen this odd approach to getting the attention he wants. Whether he wants to be fired, or wants more troops, or a change in strategy, or something else entirely is unclear to us. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

What do Cindy Sheehan, alar, and the Thrilla in Flotilla have in common? This.

We haven’t had much to say about the Thrilla in Flotilla. After all, we’ve seen it all before — the fauxtography, the knee-jerk reaction of much of the elite media and the “international community,” etc. However, the decisions by new media players YouTube and PayPal in this matter seems a new and unwelcome twist — hostile to both a US ally and to majority opinion in the United States. So it goes. We Con the World can still be seen here, and a friend of this site has suggested another tune as well.

A second Iranian ship is sailing this weekend to challenge the blockade. We seem to be approaching a point of no return, and, as Roger Simon and Scott Johnson observe, the US seems to be taking a position that “objectively” appears to favor our adversaries over our ally.

Art Laffer is pessimistic about 2011:

the prospect of rising prices, higher interest rates and more regulations next year will further entice demand and supply to be shifted from 2011 into 2010. In my view, this shift of income and demand is a major reason that the economy in 2010 has appeared as strong as it has. When we pass the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 2011, my best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe “double dip” recession.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan — with bipartisan support — began the first phase in a series of tax cuts passed under the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), whereby the bulk of the tax cuts didn’t take effect until Jan. 1, 1983. Reagan’s delayed tax cuts were the mirror image of President Barack Obama’s delayed tax rate increases. For 1981 and 1982 people deferred so much economic activity that real GDP was basically flat (i.e., no growth), and the unemployment rate rose to well over 10%.

But at the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 1983 the economy took off like a rocket, with average real growth reaching 7.5% in 1983 and 5.5% in 1984. It has always amazed me how tax cuts don’t work until they take effect. Mr. Obama’s experience with deferred tax rate increases will be the reverse. The economy will collapse in 2011.

From Edward Luttwak’s review of a 2007 Niall Ferguson book: “why was the 20th century so much more violent than earlier epochs of mankind? Ferguson’s answer is that, in this era, a particularly lethal mixture was compounded out of three specific factors: ethnic conflict with a racial dimension, economic volatility, and empires in decline.” Doesn’t it seem from time to time that some greater unrest or war is just around the corner?

The AP has a story about some fellows who apparently wanted to participate in man-caused disasters:

Authorities say two New Jersey men who intended to kill American troops were arrested at a New York City airport before boarding flights on their way to join a jihadist group in Somalia. Federal authorities say 20-year-old Mohamed Mahmood Alessa and 24-year-old Carlos Eduardo Almonte were arrested Saturday…

The arrests were made as part of an investigation known as Operation Arabian Knight. Authorities said an undercover NYPD officer had infiltrated the suspects’ group of friends and was able to monitor their consumption of jihadist videos…

The two men had planned their trip Somalia for several months, saving thousands of dollars, undergoing tactical training and test runs at paintball fields to condition themselves physically, and acquiring equipment and clothing they could use when they joined al-Shabaab in Somalia, the officials said. Both had bragged about wanting to wage holy war against the United States

Apparently the AP (and Wikipedia) didn’t get the memo from John Brennan, assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, who said that we don’t “describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself.”

From remarks to CSIS by John Brennan, assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism:

Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one’s community.

And there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children. Indeed, characterizing our adversaries this way would actually be counterproductive. It would play into the false perception that they are religious leaders defending a holy cause when in fact, they are nothing more than murderers, including the murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims. This is why Muslim leaders around the world have spoken out forcefully and often at great risk to their own lives to reject al-Qaida and violent extremism.

So exactly why is it that the violent extremists are acting so violently extreme — what is their motivation? Or must that no longer be asked? Asking Eric Holder obviously yields no results. (Raymond Ibrahim has more on this issue.)

We found this statement to be a little odd:

“Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”

Mark Steyn discusses the matter here.

This excerpt is from an appalling and oh-so politically correct policy statement in the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. It comes from the Committee on Bioethics by the way.

The American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement on newborn male circumcision expresses respect for parental decision-making and acknowledges the legitimacy of including cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions…

Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and lifethreatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC.

It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.

The policy statement is careful to note that the practice of FGM has been documented in Christian and Jewish communities, as well as some others in the “Middle East and Africa.” We were going to entitle this piece “WTF?” but the editors said we couldn’t. HT: Powerline

Which dialogue is funnier? This one about the guy who said a 10-page law was under consideration for a federal court challenge to its constitutionality, but hadn’t taken the trouble to read it:

REP. TED POE: So Arizona, since the federal government fails to secure the border, desperately passed laws to protect its own people. The law is supported by 70 percent of the people in Arizona, 60 percent of all Americans and 50 percent of all Hispanics, according to The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll done just this week. And I understand that you may file a lawsuit against the law. It seems to me the administration ought to be enforcing border security and immigration laws and not challenge them and that the administration is on the wrong side of the American people. Have you read the Arizona law?

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: I have not had a chance to — I’ve glanced at it. I have not read it.

POE: It’s 10 pages. It’s a lot shorter than the health care bill, which was 2,000 pages long. I’ll give you my copy of it, if you would like to — to have a copy.

Even though you haven’t read the law, do you have an opinion as to whether it’s constitutional

HOLDER: I have not really — I have not been briefed yet. We, as I said, have had underway a review of the law. I have not been briefed by the people who have been responsible — who are responsible for that review.

POE: Are you going to read the law?

HOLDER: I’m sure I will read the law in anticipation of that briefing. I know that they will put that in front of me, and I’ll spend a good evening reading that law.

POE: Well, I’ve gone through it. And it’s pretty simple. It takes the federal law and makes it — enacts it in a state statute, although makes it much more refined in that it actually says in one of the sections that no state or subdivision may consider race, color, national origin in implementing the requirements of any subsection of this law.

It seems to outlaw racial profiling in the law. I know there’s been a lot of media hype about the — the legislation. Do you see a difference in the constitutionality of a statute and the constitutionality of the application of that statute? Do you see there’s a difference in those two?

HOLDER: Sure, there is a potential for challenging a law on its face and then challenging a law as it is applied. So there are two bases for challenging a particular statute.

POE: And when do you think you will have an opinion as to whether the law is constitutional?

HOLDER: I’ve used this term a lot, but I think this is — I think relatively soon. I think that we have to — there has been much discussion about this. The review is underway. The Department of Justice along with the Department of Homeland Security is involved in this review. And I would expect it — our view of the law will be expressed relatively soon.

POE: You have some concerns about the statute. And it’s — it’s hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you hadn’t even read the law.
It seems like you wouldn’t make a judgment about whether it violates civil rights statutes, whether it violates federal preemption concepts if you haven’t read the law. So can you help me out there a little bit, how you can make a judgment call on — on that, but you haven’t read the law and determined whether it’s constitutional or not?

HOLDER: Well, what I’ve said is that I’ve not made up my mind. I’ve only made — made the comments that I’ve made on the basis of things that I’ve been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people who are on the review panel, on the review team looking at the law.

But I’ve not reached any conclusions as yet with regard to — I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law. But I’m not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with the people who are doing the review, exactly what my position is.

Or this one about the guy who can’t give a straight answer to a question that the vast majority of Americans find trivially easy?

SMITH: Let me go to my next question, which is — in — in the case of all three attempts in the last year, the terrorist attempts, one of which was successful, those individuals have had ties to radical Islam. Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?

HOLDER: Because of?

SMITH: Radical Islam.

HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. It’s — one, I think you have to look at each individual case. I mean, we are in the process now of talking to Mr. Shahzad to try to understand what it is that drove him to take the action.

SMITH: Yes, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?

HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people…

SMITH: But was radical Islam one of them?

HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people do things. Some of them are potentially religious…

SMITH: OK. But all I’m asking is if you think among those variety of reasons radical Islam might have been one of the reasons that the individuals took the steps that they did.

HOLDER: You see, you say radical Islam. I mean, I think those people who espouse a — a version of Islam that is not…

SMITH: Are you uncomfortable attributing any other actions to radical Islam? It sounds like it.

HOLDER: No, I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion that is not…

SMITH: No, no. I’m not talking about religion. I’m talking about radical Islam. I’m not talking about the general religion.

HOLDER: Right. And I’m saying that a person, like Anwar Awlaki, for instance, who has a version of Islam that is not consistent with the teachings of it…

SMITH: But…

HOLDER: … and who espouses a radical version…

SMITH: But then is — could radical Islam had motivated these individuals to take the steps that they did?

HOLDER: I certainly think that it’s possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like Mr. Shahzad.

SMITH: OK. And could it have been the case in one of these three instances?

HOLDER: Could that have been the case?

SMITH: Yes, could — again, could one of these three individuals have been incited by radical Islam? Apparently, you feel that that they could’ve been.

HOLDER: Well, I think potentially incited by people who have a view of Islam that is inconsistent with…

Or this?

Abbott: Strange as it may seem, they give ball players nowadays very peculiar names.

Costello: Funny names?

Abbott: Nicknames, nicknames. Now, on the St. Louis team we have Who’s on first, What’s on second, I Don’t Know is on third–

Costello: That’s what I want to find out. I want you to tell me the names of the fellows on the St. Louis team.

Abbott: I’m telling you. Who’s on first, What’s on second, I Don’t Know is on third–

Costello: You know the fellows’ names?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: Well, then who’s playing first?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: I mean the fellow’s name on first base.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The fellow playin’ first base.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy on first base.

Abbott: Who is on first.

Costello: Well, what are you askin’ me for?

Abbott: I’m not asking you–I’m telling you. Who is on first.

Costello: I’m asking you–who’s on first?

Abbott: That’s the man’s name.

Costello: That’s who’s name?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money?

Abbott: Every dollar of it. And why not, the man’s entitled to it.

Costello: Who is?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: So who gets it?

Abbott: Why shouldn’t he? Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it.

Costello: Who’s wife?

Abbott: Yes. After all, the man earns it.

Costello: Who does?

Abbott: Absolutely.

Costello: Well, all I’m trying to find out is what’s the guy’s name on first base?

Abbott: Oh, no, no. What is on second base.

Costello: I’m not asking you who’s on second.

Abbott: Who’s on first!

In our opinion, number two wins because it has irony in addition to humor.

Robert Samuelson discusses the US and EU bailout of Greece and says the global economic situation today reminds him — to a certain extent — of that in the early 1930′s:

economic scholars subscribe to a broad consensus about what went wrong in the 1930s. Government central banks, like the Fed, were too passive. They didn’t halt bank panics. Intervention at decisive moments (perhaps the failure of the Bank of the United States in late 1930 or Austria’s Credit Anstalt in spring 1931) could have changed history. Instead, mounting unemployment and falling prices fed on each other. Debtors couldn’t repay loans, leading to more bank failures, a contraction of credit and deposit losses. But this time the mistakes were not repeated. Despite criticism, banks were “bailed out.” Money was pumped into credit markets to pre-empt a downward spiral.

By this reading, the world has bought itself time to deal with underlying problems. As the economic recovery strengthens and lengthens, the politics of confronting unstable export-led growth (for Asia) or unsustainable welfare spending (for developed countries) will grow easier…

China, India, Brazil and other “emerging market” countries would become the world’s engine of growth. Their appetite for advanced goods from the developed world — airplanes, power plants, earth-moving equipment, medical instruments — would raise their living standards and sustain production and employment in advanced countries. This could be happening. The latest IMF forecasts have poorer countries (“emerging and developing economies”) growing at about 6.5 percent in 2010 and 2011 compared with 2.4 percent for all developed countries. The trouble is that this shift requires that China and other Asian countries permanently renounce export-led growth. It’s not clear that they can or will.

Everywhere countries face changes of policies, practices and habits that are deeply woven into their social, political and economic fabrics. Can developed countries gradually rein in their welfare states? Will Asia’s relentless export economies shift to domestic-led growth? Will Americans save more and spend less — and the Chinese do the opposite?

For at least three years, we have been discussing the unsustainable situation of the nations that routinely run huge current account deficits and those with huge export surpluses. The Western nations are finally tapped out, as Greece’s situation makes clear. Meanwhile, the big exporters like China are taking steps to slow their domestic economies. Could this create a new economic crisis of the kind that Samuelson fears?