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.

APRIL 23,  2011

BUT WHAT COMES NEXT? – AT 8:00 P.M. ET:  An Arab tyrant bites the dust, but the next guy at bat may turn out to be worse.  From Fox:

SANAA, Yemen – Yemen's embattled president agreed Saturday to a proposal by Gulf Arab mediators to step down within 30 days and hand power to his deputy in exchange for immunity from prosecution, a major about-face for the autocratic leader who has ruled for 32 years.

A coalition of seven opposition parties said they also accepted the deal but with reservations. Even if the differences are overcome, those parties do not speak for all of the hundreds of thousands of protesters seeking President Ali Abdullah Saleh's ouster, and signs were already emerging that a deal on those terms would not end confrontations in the streets.

A day earlier, protesters staged the largest of two months of demonstrations, filling a five-lane boulevard across the capital with a sea of hundreds of thousands of people. Day after day of protest have presented a stunning display of defiance in the face of a crackdown that has included sniper attacks and killed more than 130 people.
The uprising and a wave of defections by allies, including several top military commanders, have left Saleh clinging to power and now appear to be pushing him to compromise on his earlier refusal to leave office before his term ends in 2013.

COMMENT:  Yemen is a main center for Al Qaeda in the Mideast.  Saleh has been kind of an American ally, although I wouldn't put him up there with Churchill.  In that part of the world  you never know what those boys are really doing.

A fear in some American circles is that the power vacuum will give Al Qaeda new opportunities.  In the Mideast it's very rarely a battle between good and bad.  It's usually a fight between different levels of bad.

April 23, 2011       Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 7:51 P.M. ET:

From Forbes:  Botox May Deaden Ability to Empathize, New Study Says. 

This explains everything I need to know about the people I dealt with in Hollywood.

April 23, 2011       Permalink

UTTERLY OUTRAGEOUS – AT 11:08 A.M. ET:  When Mohamed ElBaradei was heading the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency there were serious suspicions that he wasn't playing it straight, not that this would be shocking for a UN official.

ElBaradei seemed to favor the Iranians, a suspicion ratified after his tenure ended, when we found out he'd held back critical information about the Iranian nuclear program.   Indeed, ElBaradei never seemed to meet a dictatorial regime he didn't like.

For his deceptions and appeasement of thugs, ElBaradei was, natch, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize by the little Norwegian politicians who give out that embarrassment.  Among other "deserving" recipients:  Al (it's too darned hot) Gore and Jimmy (I'm the best ex-president ever) Carter. 

Now ElBaradei is running for president of Egypt, where he has lived only rarely in recent years.  And he's written a sickening book.  From AP:

The former chief United Nations nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei suggests in a new memoir that Bush administration officials should face international criminal investigation for the shame of a needless war in Iraq.

Freer to speak now than he was as an international civil servant, the Nobel-winning Egyptian accuses U.S. leaders of grotesque distortion in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, when then-President George W. Bush and his lieutenants claimed Iraq possessed doomsday weapons despite contrary evidence collected by ElBaradei's and other arms inspectors inside the country.

Of course he doesn't point out that virtually every intelligence agency in the world agreed with our assessment.  Nor does he point out his own laxness in pursuing the issue.  And he certainly doesn't point out that, while we didn't find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, we found the WMD programs, ready to be restarted.

The Iraq war taught him that deliberate deception was not limited to small countries ruled by ruthless dictators, ElBaradei writes in The Age of Deception, being published Tuesday by Henry Holt and Company.

The 68-year-old legal scholar, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 1997 to 2009 and recently a rallying figure in Egypt's revolution, concludes his 321-page account of two decades of tedious, wrenching nuclear diplomacy with a plea for more of it, particularly in the efforts to rein in North Korean and Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Notice how the Reuters story paints this jerk as kind of demi-god.  In fact, he did a real botch job, maybe intentionally.

"All parties must come to the negotiating table," writes ElBaradei, who won the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with the IAEA in 2005. He repeatedly chides Washington for reluctant or hardline approaches to negotiations with Tehran and Pyongyang.

Sickening.  Just sickening.  Iran and North Korea are countries that murder their own citizens.  And we have negotiated with them for years.

He is harshest in addressing the Bush administration's 2002-2003 drive for war with Iraq, when ElBaradei and Hans Blix led teams of UN inspectors looking for signs Saddam Hussein's government had revived nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs.

As noted above, inspections after the war concluded that the programs were about to be restarted. 

COMMENT:  Do you get the feeling that ElBaradei is playing to his crowd?  You can be sure his book will receive laudatory coverage in parts of the mainstream media.  Now it's important that former Bush officials answer this apologist for dictators and confront his own cynical record.

April 23, 2011      Permalink

ONE SMALL STEP FOR MANKIND – AT 10:52 A.M. ET:   Columbia University, which became a major symbol of resistance to ROTC, has now officially decided to accept the return of NROTC.

The Ivy League school, which once educated more than 20,000 Navy officers, and whose officer training was featured in "The Caine Mutiny," turned against ROTC during the trendy late sixties.  Now, thanks in part to a young generation that doesn't share the juvenile anti-military attitudes of that bad time, Columbia has decided to open the door once more.  From the Columbia Spectator:

Columbia has reached an agreement with the U.S. Navy to officially recognize a Naval ROTC program on campus, University President Lee Bollinger said in a statement.

The Reserve Officers' Training Corps has not been recognized by Columbia since 1969, when protests over the Vietnam War led to the elimination of Columbia's longstanding NROTC program. Bollinger told Spectator that the agreement is a “historic turning point” for the University.

“I really wanted to do what the community wanted to do,” Bollinger said. “So in that, I am pleased that the outcome is definite and points in the direction of reengagement.”

Columbia students currently enrolled in NROTC will continue to participate in military training programs and classes through a consortium at the State University of New York Maritime College in Queens, but the new agreement means that Columbia can give them academic credit for this work.

Navy spokesperson Tamara Lawrence said that it is not unusual for a school to participate in NROTC through a nearby school with an already-established program. But the agreement will give NROTC a “very visible” presence at Columbia, she added.

“The ROTC program will certainly benefit from being at Columbia,” Lawrence said. “That is absolutely a relationship we’ll be able to open up and offer up some choices for students.”

COMMENT:  This follows the return of NROTC to Harvard.  At one time colleges participated actively in national defense.  Many, especially in the South and Midwest, still do.  We hope the examples set by Harvard and Columbia will lead other "elite" schools to condescend to become part of the country once again.

April 23, 2011       Permalink

SYRIAN OUTRAGES CONTINUE – AT 10:28 A.M. ET:  The Syrian regime, which our own government was recently calling "reformist," continues its outrages today.  From Reuters:

A witness reports that Syrian security forces killed at least six people when they opened fire on thousands at funeral processions Saturday.

Two witnesses say forces fired at crowds heading to the southern village of Izraa, killing two. Another witness says forces killed four people outside the capital of Damascus.

The crackdown comes one day after security forces killed at least 75 people in the deadliest day of monthlong protests against authoritarian President Bashar Assad.

The witness accounts could not be independently verified and they spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

In Washington, President Barack Obama condemned Friday’s use of force by Syria against anti-government demonstrators and said the regime's "outrageous" use of violence against the protesters must "end now."

COMMENT:  The brutality goes on.  The Western left, of course, remains silent.  It is amazing to see the level to which the left, and, especially, "anti-war" groups, have sunk. Well, not really amazing.  Routine, actually.

But we have in Syria, to be fair, the same problem we have elsewhere in the erupting Middle East.  We don't know exactly who the protesters are, and what they stand for.  Remember, the people of these countries have been subjected to decades of press propaganda and the 10th-century rantings of religious leaders.  These things had to have their effect.  We note that Iran, a relatively sophisticated, rather Westernized country, fell under the spell of the Islamists when the shah was ousted with American help in the late 1970s.  We don't want a repeat performance.

April 23,  2011     Permalink

APRIL 22,  2011

MASSACRE IN SYRIA – AT 5:19 P.M. ET:   A large number of deaths is reported today, as Syrian government forces fired on demonstrators following Friday prayers.  The White House issued a tough, unrelenting wrist slap:

The White House on Friday urged the Syrian government to stop its violence against demonstrators and called on Damascus to follow through on promised reforms. The comments came as Syrian security forces shot to death at least 70 protesters across Syria in the bloodiest day in a month of escalating demonstrations against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Take that, Syria!  Another White House statement, as effective as all the others.

White House spokesman Jay Carney, speaking to reporters as President Barack Obama flew back to Washington from California, said, "We deplore the use of violence." He called on the Syrian government to "cease and desist in the use of violence against protesters" and to follow through on promised reforms.

Don't you just love the legal lingo.  The passion.  The fervor.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague on Friday echoed the White House's call for a follow through on reforms, saying that said "Emergency Law should be lifted in practice, not just in word."

"I am extremely concerned by the reports of deaths and casualties across Syria" Hague said, adding that the the Syrian government should "exercise restraint instead of repression."

Syrian security forces killed at least 70 protesters on Friday, rights activists said, the bloodiest day in a month of escalating pro-democracy demonstrations against the rule of President Bashar al-Assad.

Syrian rights organization Sawasiah said 70 civilians had been killed across the country, in the biggest demonstrations to sweep Syria so far. Wissam Tarif, director of human rights group Insan, gave a similar death toll.

This probably means even larger demonstrations next week, with heavy casualties. 

By the way, one of the major stories on the Mideast out of Washington is that the Obamans are working feverishly on an Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, in order to preempt the Israeli prime minister, who visits in May.  Imagine that.  We work hard to pull the rug out from under an ally, but give a wrist slap to an enemy.  We push Egyptian ally Mubarak out of office, but do almost nothing to push the murderous Assad of Syria.

Welcome to the age of Obama.  What is the far left complaining about?  He is them.

April 22, 2011      Permalink

THE NIGHTMARE SCENARIO  – AT 10:49 A.M. ET:  It's pretty clear that Donald Trump will run for the Republican nomination for president.  But it's unlikely he'll get it.  What happens then?  Well, here in New York The Donald is known for his sizable ego, and his deep pockets.  Do you think a little nomination thing will stand in his way?  Thus, the nightmare scenario.  From The Wall Street Journal:

Donald Trump has waffled on whether he’d run as an independent should he fall flat chasing the Republican 2012 nomination. But one thing is certain: a Trump solo run could be very bad news for the Republican Party.

In Iowa, GOP operatives and activists are almost universally pumped about Mr. Trump jumping into the first-in-the-nation caucuses. The real-estate magnate and reality TV star says he will decide by June. But the same Republicans are mortified at the thought of him making an independent bid.

A Public Policy Poll released Thursday gives a good glimpse why. Were Mr. Trump to launch an independent run, 21% of those polled in Iowa said they would back him in the general election. In turn, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney got 27% support, while President Barack Obama pulled in 43%, easily enough to win the state.

The PPP poll of 1,109 Iowans has a margin of error of 2.9%.

Considering that Ross Perot garnered 18% nationally in 1992, helping tilt the election to Bill Clinton, it’s hardly outlandish to say that Mr. Trump could pull in a similar swath of voters in 2012—almost certainly guaranteeing a Obama victory.

COMMENT:  Exactly right, and I fear that may just happen.  Trump believes his own press clippings, as did Ross Perot, who did cost Bush 41 the 1992 election.  Trump may well convince himself that he could be elected as an independent.

Donald, go build an apartment house.

April 22, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 10:20 A.M. ET:

From The Hill:  President Obama said Friday that the United States can lead the world in tackling of climate change by investing in clean energy technology.

This is like the captain of the Titanic remarking, as he's going down, that he has some great ideas for building better ships in the future.

April 22, 2011      Permalink

REQUIRED READING – AT 9:23 A.M. ET:  Many kudos to Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska for writing the best piece on American energy supplies that I've yet read, published in the Washington Post.  The senator sets the record, and the president, straight on our situation.  Will he call her in for a meeting, and benefit from her extensive knowledge?  You can answer that yourself:

I welcomed President Obama’s recent pledge to increase domestic production. It was a big step, and I hope his administration heeds the message. But I’m also deeply concerned by some of the information presented about America’s energy potential. Left unchallenged, it will contribute to a mistaken belief that increased domestic production is not truly possible.

The president said this month that “even if we doubled the amount of oil that we produced, we’d still be short by a factor of five.” That’s simply incorrect. Doubling our production would trim imports nearly in half. Boosting production by a factor of five is not currently feasible, but if it were, it would make the United States the world’s largest producer.

Perhaps most misleading is his claim — also made by others — that the United States has “about 2, maybe 3 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves; we use 25 percent of the world’s oil.” That line is crafted to make the audience think that America is both running out of oil and using oil at an unsustainable rate.

In truth, “reserves” is just one of several categories used to quantify oil and, on its own, misrepresents America’s potential. To classify a barrel as a reserve, you have to drill, prove the oil is there, and meet strict criteria established by the Securities and Exchange Commission. It’s not an easy process.

Right now, America has an estimated 22.3 billion barrels of oil reserves. But that’s hardly the whole story. A recent Congressional Research Service report that I commissioned with Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma found that the United States’ recoverable oil resources are estimated at 157 billion barrels. That is seven times as much as our reserves and doesn’t even include the roughly 900 billion barrels of unconventional oil resources nearing commercialization.

COMMENT:  Please read the entire article.  We are given so much nonsense about energy supplies, much of it filtered through environmental extremists. Murkowski knows her stuff.

I read this article somewhat wistfully.  If Sarah Palin had done her homework and written articles like this, and remained as governor of Alaska, she'd be in an entirely different position right now.  By resigning her governorship, she gave up her major credential and short-circuited her governmental "experience" argument.  Alaska right now is booming because of energy prices.  If Palin had been governor, she would have glowed as a successful executive of a successful state.  Had she learned to make the kind of detailed arguments Murkowski is making, she would have been taken more seriously.  It's sad, but I think she blew it, and I can't see a road back.  The lure of celebrity became too great.

April 22, 2011       Permalink

THE TIPPING POINT? – AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  Related to Americans' grim assessment of their economic situation, reported in the post just below, is another assessment of close we may be to another recession.  From CNBC:

The combination of rising gasoline prices and the steepest increase in the cost of food in a generation is threatening to push the US economy into a recession, according to Craig Johnson, president of Customer Growth Partners.

Johnson looks at the percentage of income consumers are spending on gasoline and food as a way of gauging how consumers will fare when energy prices spike.

With gas prices now standing at about $3.90 a gallon, energy costs have now passed 6 percent of spending—a level that Johnson says is a "tipping point" for consumers.

"Energy is not quite as essential as food and water, but is a necessity in today's economy, and when gasoline costs more than bottled water—like now—then it takes a huge bite out of disposable spending," he said, in a research note.

Of the six US recessions since 1970, all but the "9-11 year 2001 recession" have been linked to—if not triggered by—energy prices that crossed the 6 percent of personal consumption expenditures, he said. (During the shallow 2001 recession, energy prices had risen to about 5 percent of spending, which is higher than the long-term 4 percent share.)

What may make matters worse this time around, is there has been a steep increase in food prices that occurred as well. In other recent recessions food costs were benign, at between 7.5 percent and 7.8 percent of spending.

COMMENT:  What is so striking, and I think Americans will get this, is the coldness coming from the White House.  High energy prices?  Why, maybe that's good for us.  They'll force us to be enlightened, like the crowd that flies to Aspen in private jets each year to attend conferences on major issues. 

This president, who mastered the dramatic moment during his campaign, seems incapable of doing so as president.  Thus the label "no drama Obama."  It's all very intellectual...but real people are hurting out there.  Long-term energy theories, often supplied by the global-warming crowd, just don't cut it.

April 22, 2011      Permalink

GRIM IN AMERICA – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  Weren't we supposed to be in an economic recovery?  I read it somewhere.  Or some guy living in a big house on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington said it.  But Americans – you know, those people who cling to their guns and their religion – apparently don't think so:

Americans are more pessimistic about the nation’s economic outlook and overall direction than they have been at any time since President Obama’s first two months in office, when the country was still officially ensnared in the Great Recession, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Amid rising gas prices, stubborn unemployment and a cacophonous debate in Washington over the federal government’s ability to meet its future obligations, the poll presents stark evidence that the slow, if unsteady, gains in public confidence earlier this year that a recovery was under way are now all but gone.

Capturing what appears to be an abrupt change in attitude, the survey shows that the number of Americans who think the economy is getting worse has jumped 13 percentage points in just one month. Though there have been encouraging signs of renewed growth since last fall, many economists are having second thoughts, warning that the pace of expansion might not be fast enough to create significant numbers of new jobs.

The economy is dragging down ratings for both parties, and for President Obama, so Republicans can take no great comfort in this poll's result. 

Disapproval of Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy has never been broader — at 57 percent of Americans — a warning sign as he begins to set his sights on re-election in 2012. And a similar percentage disapprove of how Mr. Obama is handling the federal budget deficit, though more disapprove of the way Republicans in Congress are.

COMMENT:  One would think that the direction of public opinion points to the desirability of the GOP nominating a successful governor next year – someone who has kept his state afloat amidst the turmoil.  But none of those governors has yet to capture the national imagination. 

We're told that many potential Republican candidates are holding back, for fear of spending too much campaign cash too early.  That may be a wise tactical move, but it has permitted people like Donald Trump to capture a great deal of TV attention.

The president may win by default in 2012 unless the Republicans build their bench.

April 22, 2011     Permalink