Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

PRE-ELECTION SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE – IMPORTANT!

This message is especially for readers who've joined us recently:

Do you like Urgent Agenda?  Would you like to see us survive and grow?  Would you like to have special Urgent Agenda features delivered right to your computer?

If the answer is yes, please become a subscriber. 

Subscriptions are the life blood of Urgent Agenda.  Without them, we vanish.  We have a superb subscriber base whose support is vital, and we have many, many new readers, but we need more subscribers to maintain our level of service and expand beyond it.

As a subscriber you 1) support our work and 2) become a member of the Angel's Corner.  Members receive a private e-mail twice a week with features not published on the free site.  Members also participate in our Forum, which we think is the most provocative on the web.  You can write at length on anything you wish.  There are special essays.  And it's at the Angel's Corner where we give the coveted Pompous Fool Award, every bit as revered as the Worst-Dressed Actress Award. 

Unless you subscribe, you're only getting half of Urgent Agenda, and missing a good part of the fun.  We hope, in the future, to expand the Angel's Corner to three times a week.

So please subscribe through PayPal in the right-hand column under SUBSCRIPTIONS.  Or, in that same place, you can donate what you please.  If you don't like PayPal, let us know and we'll send you a mail address.

This election is crucial.  Your support is crucial if we're to be there every step of the way.  Help us see the fight through.

Note:  The early results of our subscription drive have been sluggish.  We really must make progress if we're to sustain and enlarge our work.  If you are, in particular, a new reader, please consider subscribing.  If you decide you don't like your subscription, we'll gladly return the unused portion.

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2010

WHAT DECADE IS THIS? – AT 7:35 P.M. ET:  Journalists like to think of themselves as ahead of the curve, on the cutting edge, people who know more than the rest of us do.  In fact, it's been my experience that many journalists are behind the times, often stuck in the world of their youth, or the world they wallowed in while at university. 

In part, this is because the craft of the "reporter" has given way to the presumption of the "analyst."  While truly first-class journalists have deep respect for the discipline of the reporter, some others consider that work beneath them, and consider the title an embarrassment.   They prefer to contemplate the world, the better to rub shoulders with intellectuals, professors, and UN diplomats.

To demonstrate what happens when reporting caves in to contemplating, consider this fantastic remark by Roger Cohen of The New York Times, a recent recipient of Urgent Agenda's prestigious Pompous Fool Award:

The Sept. 11 attacks, seen now with a little perspective, shattered America’s self-image. A continent-sized sanctuary, flanked by the shining waters of two oceans, was no longer. A hideous neologism, the “homeland,” was coined to describe a country that now needed vigilant protection from within and without. Two wars, one longer than any in the nation’s history, deepened the trauma.

Huh?  What decade is this man living in?  America hasn't thought of itself as a sanctuary, protected by two oceans, since before the Second World War.  Indeed, we learned the lessons of that war better than anyone else, and maintained, throughout the Cold War, a vigorous national defense precisely because we knew there was no longer a sanctuary.  Mr. Cohen is 70 years out of date.

And since when has "homeland" had such an evil connotation?  The word is commonly used.  In Cohen's universe, everyone is presumably entitled to a "homeland" except Americans. (Just as, among so-called "multiculturalists," everyone is entitled to cultural respect except Americans.)  And Cohen writes that America, after 9-11, "now needed vigilant protection from within and without."  Just wait a second.  Isn't "vigilant protection" exactly what we were doing during all those years of facing down the Soviet Union? 

This is what happens when the reporter is crushed and the pompous fool emerges.  Accurate history goes right out the energy-effient window.  Jack Webb said it best:  "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."  I wish my profession would go back to that basic theme.

September 10, 2010      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 8:37 A.M. ET: 

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) - A Baton Rouge Metro Council member wants the parish to support a public awareness campaign against men who wear their pants so low that their boxer shorts show. Councilwoman C. Denise Marcelle has a slogan for the campaign: "Low pants, no chance."

"I hate to see it and I see so much of it in my district," Marcelle said. "It's disrespectful to the elderly, to young kids and to women."  Her resolution, on the agenda for discussion Wednesday, says wearing saggy pants creates negative stereotypes and that "those who wear saggy pants are hurting their chances of becoming employable, educated and productive citizens."

Give the lady a round of applause, and pass her resolution. 

September 10, 2010      Permalink

WISE THINKING – AT 8:16 A.M. ET:  We have repeatedly warned here about over-optimism in Republican ranks, and wild predictions of a GOP tsunami.  Fortunately, the real pros are thinking the same way, as Byron York reports in the Washington Examiner:

Things have gotten out of hand when it comes to predictions of a Republican victory in the upcoming midterm elections. In recent days, talk of a GOP edge has turned into talk of a GOP blowout. Prognosticators have upgraded the coming political storm from Category 4 to Category 5. Republican control of the House has gone from possible to inevitable.

Dick Morris, in particular, has been on Fox every night virtually assuring us of a Republican blowout in both houses of Congress.

But Republicans don't believe it, or at least the insiders involved in the midterm effort don't believe it. As they see it, they're in a good position to pick up the 39 seats needed to win control of the House, but polls showing a huge GOP lead are simply wrong. "I'm assuming that Cook and Rothenberg and Rove and the others have got different indications from what we've got," says one member of the House GOP election team. "I don't want to overestimate what's out there."

It could well be that, privately, the pros also see the possibility of a landslide, but know that it could be taken away by the indifference (and non-voting) that comes from overconfidence. 

Some of the talk downplaying the GOP lead may be counterspin to ensure Republicans don't become overconfident. "We don't want to cause our voters to get lax and think we've got it," says the member of the election team. But Republicans are also genuinely concerned about peaking too soon.

And...

Perhaps the best way to characterize the GOP election team now is confident but nervous -- confident that the basic trends of the election are going their way but nervous at the talk of a runaway victory. Be on guard against irrational exuberance, they're telling supporters -- and be sure to vote on Nov. 2.

Those are grown-ups talking.

September 10, 2010      Permalink

THE COMMON-SENSE NATION – AT 7:58 A.M. ET:  I always find myself so impressed by the way Americans handle complex moral issues.  Churchill remarked that the American people really do care about getting things right, about the moral core of society. 

Contrast that please with some of the more cynical nations, with their amoral elites spouting bromides while sending electronic equipment to Iran.

In the last few weeks we have seen, once again, that Americans aren't the hickish dullards portrayed in leftist Hollywood movies and on the "prestigious" campuses of the northeast.  Yes, they say, Muslims have a right to build their mosque near Ground Zero.  But no, they say, it's an insensitive idea, and the group behind the mosque (and community center) should reconsider.

Yes, they say, that whacked-out pastor in Florida has the right to burn the Koran.  But no, they say, it's a very bad and harmful thing to do, and shouldn't be done.  The right is there, but it isn't right.

Contrast again please with the stunning comments by the imam behind the Ground Zero mosque, who said on TV over the weekend that if the mosque issue isn't handled "right," there could be repercussions around the world.

Where I come from, that's called blackmail, and Americans know it.  I wish a reporter had confronted this chap with that word, and asked his reaction.

Isn't it strange:  From the president on down, leading Americans have pleaded with that pastor not to burn the Koran because of the insensitivity of the act.  For this, our leaders are called statesmen.  But when an overwhelming majority of Americans ask that the mosque not be built at Ground Zero, to show sensitivity to the horror that was committed there, they're called bigots and Islamophobes.  I can think of no greater example to mark the hypocrisy of elite opinion in America today.

For the last generation, our students have been taught, in too many institutions, that there really aren't any rights or wrongs, simply different "narratives."  We see that thinking reflected in the hobbled, spiritually vacant journalism we all read every day.  We're fortunate that, thus far, the American people aren't buying the line. 

Too many of our leading "intellectuals" have forgotten what it means to be human, to have human feelings.  When Sarah Palin said that the mosque at Ground Zero "tears at the heart," she spoke for a nation.  And she was laughed at by the very people who claim to be our eyes and ears.

September 10, 2010      Permalink 

WHAT?  GOOD POLITICAL NEWS FROM ILLINOIS? – AT 7:44 A.M. ET:  When anything good politically comes out of Illinois, and especially when there's no indictment involved, we check it carefully to be sure it's not an internet hoax.  This seems real:

Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk holds a slight lead over Democratic challenger Alexi Giannoulias.
According to the latest Rasmussen Reports survey Kirk leads Giannoulias 41-37 percent, while Green Party candidate LeAlan Jones has nine-percent of the vote.

Nine-percent are undecided.

The last survey taken two weeks ago, the two frontrunners were tied at 45-percent apiece.

The survey talked to 750 likely voters and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus four-percent.

COMMENT:  This is a midterm election coming up.  Those national polls are interesting, but midterms are won state by state, district by district, so we'll try to look more closely at these local polls.

Illinois is critical.  If things go our way in the Senate race there – the race for Mr. Obama's old seat – it may well mean that our side has a good shot at controlling the new Senate...with its power to confirm Supreme Court justices. 

The Illinois race has two defective candidates running against each other.  The Dem, Alexi Giannoulias, has a truckload of financial corruption issues.  The GOP candidate, the otherwise fine Congressman Mark Kirk, has fibbed about his military record.  Even with that, he's vastly preferable to Giannoulias.

Rasmussen polls among likely voters, which is the kind of poll we prefer here.  Kirk's lead is within the margin of error, so this race is hardly in the bag.

September 10, 2010      Permalink

AS ESTIMATE DAY APPROACHES – AT 7:25 A.M. ET:  Ah yes, September 15th, another tax estimate day, is just around the corner.  I will be going online this weekend to do my monetary bit to help finance the stimulus package.  I'm so enthusiastic. 

I thought you might be interested, as citizens, in how those in the land of Obama handle their own tax obligations.  You will be bowled over with inspiration.  From Andrew Malcolm at the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog:

...we do know that as of the end of 2009, 41 people inside Obama's very own White House owe the government they're allegedly running a total of $831,055 in back taxes. That would cover a lot of special chocolate desserts in the White House Mess.

In the House of Representatives, 421 people owe a total $6,524,892. In the Senate, 217 owe $2,774,836. In the IRS's parent department, Treasury, 1,204 owe $7,670,814. At the Labor Dept., where Secy. Hilda Solis' husband had some backtax problems before her confirmation, 463 owe $7,481,463. Eighty-one workers for the Federal Reserve System's board of governors owe $1,076,733.

Over at the Justice Department, which is so busy enforcing other laws and suing Arizona, 1,971 employees still owe $14,350,152 in overdue taxes.

And...

Then, we come to the Department of Homeland Security, which is run by Janet Napolitano, the former governor of Arizona who preferred to call terrorist acts "man-caused disasters." Homeland Security is keeping all of us safe by ensuring that a Dutch tourist is onboard every inbound international flight to thwart any would-be bomber with explosives in his underpants.

Within that department, there reside 4,856 people who owe the tax agency a whopping total of $37,012,174.

And they're checking our pockets for metal and coins?

COMMENT:  I hope someone asks about this at the next presidential news conference.  Aren't public servants supposed to set an example?  Look at those figures from the White House alone. 

Say it ain't so, Barack.

September 10, 2010     Permalink 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2010

BEYOND OUTRAGEOUS – AT 8:38 P.M. ET:  Governments are sure creative these days...at least in ways to punish citizens.  But this is beyond the pale.  From Fox:

As local governments strain against declining revenues, many have turned to a controversial -- and legally dubious -- way to raise money: They're charging accident victims for municipal services that are already covered by taxes. And the biggest proponents of these “Accident Response Fees” -- also known as "crash taxes" -- often are not good government groups and economists, but debt collection agencies looking to expand their business.

Every time a local public safety service (police, fire, ambulance, hazmat) responds to an emergency call, a bill gets sent to the person who receives aid...

...In Florida, if a fire chief shows up at your accident, it'll cost you an extra $200 an hour. Need a Jaws of Life rescue in Sacramento, Calif.? Add $1,875. In Chico, Calif., going into a ditch could cost as much as your car, because a complex rescue goes for $2,000 an hour, plus $50 per hour for each rescue worker. And if there is gas or oil to clean up, the hazmat team will bill another $100 per hour per team member. In San Francisco an ambulance ride will cost $1,642 under a new proposal there.

And...

While the popularity of "crash taxes" is rapidly growing in cash-starved city council chambers, the fees have sparked strenuous opposition from insurance companies, small businessmen, tourism associations and outraged citizens, who see the bills as a double tax.

Many also see an unholy alliance between local governments and the chief backers of the practice: debt collection companies, who they say often try to collect on debts in a heavy-handed and threatening manner -- even though most of the enabling statutes involving accident fees make them uncollectible from all but insurance companies.

COMMENT:  Read the whole piece.  This is insane, probably illegal, and disgraceful.  I suspect this kind of double tax will last only for a short time, until public outrage puts a stop to it.

September 9, 2010      Permalink

MAYBE IT'S THE BATTERIES IN THE CALCULATOR – AT 8:05 P.M. ET:  At least, that's what the brains in the White House must be thinking as they look at today's report from Rasmussen, which makes a neat little package with the post just below this one:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-seven percent (47%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -24 (see trends).

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve...

...Today's Approval Index rating is the lowest yet recorded for this president. Overall Job Approval matches the lowest recorded number, and the number who Strongly Disapprove matches the highest yet recorded.

The approval index essentially measures passion, something Mr. Obama once felt from the electorate.  What a difference a trillion dollars makes.

President Obama continues to earn Approval from 74% of Democrats. However, 88% of Republicans disapprove. So do 63% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

That independent figure is a disaster.  It means that the highest number of independents who approve is 37%.

We caution once again that daily tracking polls can be volatile, but there's been a downward trend for Mr. Obama in the Rasmussen surveys recently. 

Overall, 41% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-eight percent (58%) disapprove.

COMMENT:  Mr. Obama is two points away from slipping into the thirties.  If that point is reached it will, by definition, prompt massive amounts of political commentary and heavy snickering. 

During his presidential campaign Mr. Obama was saved by the economic collapse of late September, 2008.  Voters inevitably turned to the alternative to the party in power.  We'll just have to wait to see if any new salvation lies around the corner.

September 9, 2010      Permalink

ELECTION UPDATE – AT 9:07 A.M. ET:  "Ah," sane Democrats must be dreaming, "to have FDR, Truman or Kennedy at a time like this."  Trouble is, those guys wouldn't recognize today's Democratic Party.

There's more bad news for the Dems this morning.  At some point, one begins to have sympathy.  Not too much, but some.  From The Politico:

Democrats are already expected to lose seats in the November midterm elections, but now there's even more bad news for the party that controls Congress and the White House.

A study released Tuesday shows Republicans boast a voter turnout record so far this cycle that, compared with Democrats, is unprecedented for a midterm election in the past 80 years.

A higher average percentage of Republicans than Democrats turned out for their respective statewide primaries this year for the first time in a midterm election since 1930, according to Curtis Gans, the director of American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate.

Gans is a well-regarded guy.  I'd take him seriously. 

The study shows that Republican turnout averaged 10.5 percent in statewide primaries — the highest it has been in a midterm election since 1970. Meanwhile, Democratic turnout was about 8.3 percent in statewide primaries — the lowest percentage on record for an election year in which there was not a presidential contest...

...Not only did a higher percentage of eligible GOP voters cast their ballots in statewide primaries, but 4 million more Republicans than Democrats voted in those races so far this year. Of the 30 million people who have voted in 35 statewide primaries so far this cycle, more than 17 million were Republicans and almost 13 million were Democrats.

COMMENT:  Primary participation is a pretty reliable guide to turnout on election day.  It's universally assumed that Republicans just have far more enthusiasm this year than Democrats, and more incentive to go to the polls. 

What can change this outlook is a fear campaign by Democrats, targeted at their base.  People can be scared into voting.  Even the dead can be scared into voting, as Chicago shows us.  "They'll take away your mother's Social Security" is the opening gun of most Democratic fear campaigns.  Watch it get fired in the next few weeks.

September 9, 2010      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 8:49 A.M. ET: 

MACON, Ga., Sept. 8 (UPI) -- Officials in a Georgia county said they would consider changing the name of a street called Lustful Court if neighbors sign a petition.  Bibb County Commissioner Lonzy Edwards told the commission Tuesday that he has received complaints about the name of the road, WMAZ-TV, Macon, Ga., reported Wednesday.

Wait, wait.  Didn't the people who moved to Lustful Court know the name of the street before they bought the house?  There's just no financial education anymore.

September 9, 2010      Permalink

DECLINE OF A DEMIGOD – AT 8:35 A.M. ET:  Nile Gardner is one of those astute British writers who understood the reality of Obama right from the start.  He was not among the believers.  Now he chronicles the decline of the president, even among those who have worshipped:

Democrats in Congress are no longer asking themselves whether this is going to be a bad election year for them and their party. They are asking whether it is going to be a disaster. The GOP pushed deep into Democratic-held territory over the summer, to the point where the party is well within range of picking up the 39 seats it would need to take control of the House. Overall, as many as 80 House seats could be at risk, and fewer than a dozen of these are held by Republicans.

Political handicappers now say it is conceivable that the Republicans could also win the 10 seats they need to take back the Senate. Not since 1930 has the House changed hands without the Senate following suit.

And...

For most of the year, America’s political and media elites, including the Obama team itself, have touted the notion of an economic recovery (which never materialised), significantly underestimated the rise of the Tea Party movement, and questioned the notion that conservatism was sweeping America. It is only now hitting home just how close Washington is to experiencing a political revolution in November that will fundamentally change the political landscape on Capitol Hill, with huge implications for the Obama presidency. What was once a perspective confined largely to Fox News, online conservative news sites, or talk radio is now gaining ground in the liberal US print media as well – historic change is coming to America, though not quite the version promised by Barack Obama.

COMMENT:  It's been pointed out that even the late-night talk-show hosts, who once gave Obama a free pass, are now taking aim at him.  Midterm elections are a verdict on the president in power, and the verdict thus far is decidedly negative. 

Obviously, the Democrats can come alive.  Good campaigning, as Obama himself has demonstrated, can take the electorate beyond reality.  But Mr. Obama has been a disappointment, a disappointment at a time when Americans desperately need effective leadership.  He's have to run some spectacular campaign to reverse the tide that's built over the summer.

September 9, 2010      Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:25 A.M. ET:   There was a time when television outlets had standards.  Sometimes, they'd even have a whole office devoted to enforcing them.  That was then.  Now is represented by MSNBC, the sewer of the left, where there are no standards, and no taste.

One of the worst offenders at MSNBC is a relatively new liberal bomb thrower named Ed Schultz.  Consider his latest offering.  From RealClearPolitics, video included:

They're against it because you see, 'he's a black guy, he's in the White House, we don't appreciate him, we don't want him, he's not supposed to be there, this is all about power,'" Schultz said. Schultz makes several jokes about "tan man" Rep. Boehner (R-OH) for using a tanning bed.

COMMENT:  The more extreme Obamans are now claiming that anyone who opposes Obama, the Ground Zero mosque, or is in favor of Arizona's new illegal-immigration law is a racist or a bigot.  It's a return to the 1960s by a certain group in American society that truly believes those were the glory days, and that tie-died jeans are the symbol of revolution.  Do you realize that these people are in power?

September 9, 2010       Permalink

REAL SENSITIVE GUY – AT 8:11 A.M. ET:  The chap behind the Ground Zero mosque is going public.  I'm not sure he's doing himself much good.  From Andrew Malcolm at the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog:

Just three days before the ninth anniversary of the deadly 9/11 attacks, the controversial Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf behind the proposed mosque and community center near New York's "ground zero" said Wednesday night he had no intention of seeking an alternative site, despite overwhelming public opinion opposition to his plan.

He said his resistance to such a suggestion was a matter of national security because to move the site would inflame radical Muslims abroad and endanger Americans and American interests. 

I think the term "blackmail" comes to mind.

At another point during the revealing CNN interview, however, the Imam said that "nothing is off the table."

Speaking exclusively with Soledad O'Brien on "Larry King Live," the imam said the proposed mosque site two blocks from "ground zero" could not be considered sacred ground because of the seamy nature of much of the surrounding neighborhood. "You can't say a place that has strip joints is sacred ground," the imam declared.

Does this man understand anything?  Just read that last sentence.  Apparently, the sacrifice of nearly 3,000 people would have meaning only in a better neighborhood.

He spouts on about peace and harmony, but will not move the site of the mosque, which would increase peace and harmony.

Hypocrite.

September 9, 2010     Permalink