This is bleak. Bush had a better bookshelf. In Dubious Battle is good, at least; it shows the manipulativeness of the Communist Party in the union movement in the 30s. Should have clued him in about Bill Ayers. Zakaria is better than many of the foreign policy commentators he might have read — Paul Kennedy, for example. His reading on FDR is bad, basically liberal myth-making. He should read Amity Shales. Perhaps somebody should get him Conrad Black’s book on FDR; if he likes it, maybe he would give him a commutation.

As Gonzague de Reynold said, “Often behind a false moderation there lurks genuine cowardice.”

I can’t find the exact quote, but Robert Lane (CEO of John Deere) had a great line about the key to good decision-making being the willingness to go into the thicket of ambiguity and then come out the other side. While some overly-non-analytical leaders may skip the thicket of ambiguity step, what the NYT types miss is the need to come out on the other side. Shades of gray must be resolved into primary colors if effective action is to be taken.

See also Arthur Koestler.

It’s the great cultural divide between those who talk and those who produce.

Was made to listen to hysteria on TV while waiting in Dr’s reception; if it was up to me, I’d switched to cartoons. More honest.

Of course I hope that Obama rises to the occasion. But I fear that he will make poor decisions and won’t be called on them by enough people, and that his partisans will accuse critics of racism.

It is ironic that the first supposedly post-racial president got the job largely because of his skin color and has been held to a lower standard of qualification than other candidates have been. The presidency is no place to play racial preferences games, yet here we are.