I have a new piece up today at the Hudson New York website, entitled "Will America Make it?"  For those interested, it's here.

TUESDAY,  DECEMBER 8,  2009

AND NOW FOR SOME GOOD QUOTES - AT 8:13 P.M. ET:  We published a bad, bizarre quote from the academic world at 6:12 p.m., but do not fear.  Academics can say some very wise things.  Consider Tom Sowell, one of our favorite academics and columnists.  Reader Jacqueline Reckseit sends us some recent quotes from Sowell, which show the man's intelligence and common sense:

In response to news of President Obama receiving the Nobel Prize for peace, an e-mail from a reader recalled a black classmate's comments upon graduating from high school many years ago. When asked to list the advantages and disadvantages of being black, the black student facetiously listed as an advantage "being praised for infinitesimal accomplishments."

President George W. Bush called this the "soft bigotry of low expectations."  It is insulting and ultimately racist to hold blacks to a lower intellectual standard than whites. 

No one likes to admit having been played for a fool. So it will probably take a mushroom cloud over some American city before some Obama supporters wake up. Even so, the true believers among the survivors will probably say that this was all George Bush's fault.

No doubt.  Blame Bush.  And the centrifuges in Iran, under the control of a crazed government, continue to spin.

There has probably never before been as drastic a decline in the quality of vice presidents as there has been when Dick Cheney was replaced by Joe Biden.

Amen, amen.

People who are urging us to do things to win the approval of other countries seem to put such an excessive value on other countries' approval, as distinguished from their respect, that we can lose by such bowing to "world opinion." Do the world champion New York Yankees try to curry favor with teams that are also-rans?

Tom Sowell.  Savor.

December 8, 2009   Permalink

HEALTH "REFORM" LATEST - AT 6:32 P.M. ET:  From the Washington Post:

The Senate narrowly rejected an amendment that would have restricted abortion coverage in the pending health-care bill, leaving in question whether Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) has the 60 votes needed to move the bill toward final passage.

The measure, which failed 54-45, addressed the scope of restrictions on coverage of abortion services for people who receive subsidies to buy insurance. The outcome was expected, but could cost the support of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who has threatened to filibuster the $848 billion bill unless abortion restrictions are tightened.

Reid told reporters earlier Tuesday afternoon he would consider other language to allay Nelson's concerns. "If in fact he doesn't succeed here, we'll try something else," Reid said.

The vote came amid intense final negotiations on the bill, as Reid aims to wrap up debate on amendments and begin a long procedural stand-off with Republicans -- possibly extending 10 days -- before the bill can come to a final vote before Christmas.

COMMENT:  What a complete mess.  Does anyone know what's in this bill?  There seems to be a drive to pass anything. We can only hope that Republicans, joined by "moderate" Democrats, will filibuster the monstrosity to death.

But, sadly, in the end, we will probably see a few liberal Republicans, like Olympia Snowe, going along, and moderate Dems caving in, even if it costs them their jobs.  And we will probably see something passed by a narrow margin.

And then the trouble begins.

December 8, 2009   Permalink

AWFUL QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 6:12 P.M. ET:  As I've said before, I love academic people - real academic people.  That may exclude a disturbingly large chunk of college faculties today.

One of the things that drives me crazy is the corrupt moral equivalence posed by some academics today.  As you know, a professor in Binghamton, New York, was murdered several days ago by a Muslim graduate student who'd exhibited violent tendencies earlier.  In response to this crime, members of the Binghamton University (State University of New York) anthropology department did their usual thing.  From The New York Times:

Those from the anthropology department met for about 90 minutes on Monday in the same building where Dr. Antoun kept his office. Some of those who attended the meeting said that the group talked about how it was not only a tragedy that Dr. Antoun had been killed, but also that a member of their community had been accused of committing the act.

“We are all stricken with sadness for both parties,” said Prof. H. Stephen Straight. “It’s a terrible tragedy what happened to Dick, and it is a tragedy that the alleged suspect was one of us.”

That is bad.  That is very, very bad - setting up a moral equivalence between victim and perpetrator.  Of course, on the left that's normal talk, which is why the left can never deal effectively with violent crime.

I'm amused by the prof's name - Professor Straight.  You'd think he'd change it just to be politically correct.  Maybe "Professor Sexual Choice."

Dr. Straight said that university officials had advised those at the meeting not to speak with the media, but he chose to speak publicly because of a relationship with Dr. Antoun that extended back to the 1970s, when they both began teaching at Binghamton.

Does the term "cover-up" come to mind?  Why shouldn't they speak to the press in an institution that, presumably, celebrates academic freedom and the free flow of ideas.  We all know why. 

“It’s tragically ironic that he would fall victim to someone who had been paranoid and delusional about his identity,” Dr. Straight said. “Dick had spent his whole life trying to understand people and their identities.”

Yup.  There it is.  The Major Hasan defense.  He was just one screwed-up guy.  Nothing more, folks, nothing more.

According to Andrew Merriweather, the director of anthropology graduate studies, Mr. Zahrani, who is Saudi, was well regarded and had planned to travel to Dearborn, Mich., to do his fieldwork for his dissertation.

“We admitted him, we are very selective,” Dr. Merriweather said. “He came in with a master’s degree and he did very well in his classes compared to other students.”

Just a great student with a bit of a problem. 

Can you believe this stuff?

December 8, 2009   Permalink

THE NEXT WAVE - CHECKBOOKS OUT, PENS READY - AT 6:01 P.M. ET:  Isn't it remarkable about the Democrats:  They think the money in the federal treasury is theirs.  From McClatchy:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Tuesday made the case for spending some of an expected $200 billion left over from last year's federal bailout of banks to pay for new small-business tax cuts and short-term job creation as well as deficit reduction.

The plan the president described in a speech at the Brookings Institution, a center-left research center, didn't include an overall price tag, and several Republicans say that Troubled Asset Relief Program leftovers must go toward deficit repayment and shouldn't be transferrable to new spending.

Obama and his aides, however, said that TARP money was fair game for job creation and that the president would work with Congress to consider funding questions.

COMMENT:  Praise to the writers of the story for describing Brookings as "a center-left research center."  That kind of specific description, especially when the story deals with the left, is sorely lacking in today's journalism.  Instead, we get terms like "ant-war activist."

As to the specifics, we'll have to see what's proposed.  But returning these funds to the American people, where the money originated, wouldn't be a bad idea.

December 8, 2009   Permalink

WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING US - AT 10:03 A.M. ET:  Just as the Dems' health-care "reform" bill contains many hidden goodies that are not discussed with the public, so the proposed global-warming treaty being kicked around in Copenhagen contains some things that the American people might find, to put it mildly, surprising.  American Thinker has the facts:

The draft of the treaty encompasses 181 pages and recites that it shall be the obligation of the developed countries (Europe, United States, Japan, Australia, etc.) to pay the developing countries (China, India, Africa, etc.) huge reparations, annual sums to erase poverty and to share technology with them. Australian lawyer Janet Albrechtsen explains the most recent draft of the treaty:

Clause after complicated clause sets out the requirement that developed countries such as Australia pay their "adaptation debt" to developing countries. Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be at least $US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn a year.

And the "developing" nations, some of which have trouble developing anything, are making huge demands:

In the behind-the-scenes negotiations, the developed countries have already agreed to pay $167 billion per year, but the developing countries are holding out for $400 billion per year according to BusinessGreen.com.

And, of course, we know that money will be wisely spent.  Right.

It is not clear what share will come from the United States. But based upon the totals cited by BusinessGreen, it safely can be assumed that Obama will volunteer somewhere between $50 and $200 billion per year by 2020 as the U.S. share.

You read that correctly.  Two-hundred billion.

Naturally, we will be deemed the guiltiest of the guilty:

The largest share of the burden would be borne by the United States. Students of history may remember that the reparations forced upon Germany by the victors of World War I, resulted in hyperinflation, destroyed the German middle class, and eventually brought Adolf Hitler to power, causing World War II. Economist John Maynard Keynes predicted this disaster at the time.

And...

Basically what this treaty proposes is that the United States go ever further in debt to China, selling China our remaining assets, so that we can pay reparations to the developing countries, so that they can afford to buy windmills and solar panels from China.

The result would greatly accelerate the present trends. We would become a nation unable to get out of debt, even with the falling dollar. We would stop being an "ownership society" and become, in the words of Warren Buffett, a "sharecropper society."

Fortunately, a treaty requires ratification by two thirds of the Senate.  I suspect that's where this crazy scheme will die.  But you never know.  A campaign by the left wing of the Democratic Party, joined by zealots in the press, and by some misguided Republicans, might result in an upset. 

Watch this one with two eyes.  Will Obama be foolish enough to back such a treaty?  Only if he wants to be a one-term president.

December 8, 2009   Permalink 

GATES USES THE "W" WORD, KEEPS HIS JOB - AT 9:30 A.M.   Secretary of Defense Robert Gates apparently didn't get the memo.  He actually used the word "win" in discussing Afghanistan.  This means there will be no honorary degree from an Ivy League school.  Fox News reports:

KABUL -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates arrived late Monday in Afghanistan with plans to assure officials and American troops there that the United States is committed to winning the war despite plans to begin pulling forces out in 2011.

"We are in this thing to win," Gates told reporters while traveling to Kabul, where he plans to meet privately with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and later with troops bearing the brunt of combat.

It's nice to hear "win" occasionally.  We haven't heard the word from the president.

The secretary's trip to Afghanistan is the first by a Cabinet member since President Barack Obama's announcement last week that he will deploy 30,000 more troops with the intention of starting to bring them home in July 2011.

As Gates took his message abroad, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the overall military commander in Afghanistan, will try Tuesday to convince a skeptical Congress that more troops are needed to fight a growing enemy insurgency. More than 920 U.S. troops have died in the 8-year-old war.

COMMENT:  Comments by administration officials following the president's West Point speech have been sharper and better than Obama's remarks.  Men at war must have a will to win.  If leaders won't even use that word - and the president won't - who supplies that will?  Gates spoke intelligently.

December 8, 2009   Permalink

MR. SMALL TIME - AT 8:53 A.M. ET:  Colin Powell got his State Department portrait yesterday, as if anyone cares.  I've always regarded Powell as vastly overrated, self-righteous, and, in the end, petty and selfish.  Here is a man who opposed Ronald Reagan's "tear down that wall" Berlin speech; who seemed spectacularly indifferent to the first Gulf war; who was so vague on advancing the American interest that he even frustrated Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's secretary of state; who didn't even bother to visit Ground Zero, in his home city, after the 9-11 attacks; who spent most of his time as secretary of state in his desk chair; who has sniped repeatedly at his own president, George W. Bush, but didn't have the dignity to resign in protest; who turned his back on John McCain to endorse the inexperienced machine politician, Barack Obama; and who didn't even have the class to acknowledge members of the Bush administration, including rivals, who came to his portrait's unveiling.  From the Washington Post:

Though all of Powell's colleagues from the Bush Cabinet were invited, Rumsfeld, former Bush chief of staff Andy Card and a couple of others were outnumbered among attendees by a media contingent that included Tom Brokaw, Diane Sawyer, Sam Donaldson, Wolf Blitzer and Joe Scarborough.

Powell singled out none of his Bush colleagues, instead acknowledging former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer. "Many of you will remember the disagreement that we had with Germany over the Iraq situation in 2003, to the point where our leaders were somewhat estranged from each other, but Joschka and I and our fellow diplomats on both sides were never estranged from each other," he told an audience that included Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), former senators John Warner and Paul Laxalt, and Obama adviser David Axelrod.

Acknowledging Rumsfeld, who came to honor Powell, and praising Rumsfeld's efforts at national defense after 9-11, would have been the class thing to do.  But lack of class always shows.

Powell praised the resurgent notion of "respecting the right of other nations to disagree with us and often dealing with regimes that do not share our values."

George W. Bush dealt with plenty of regimes like that.  Powell's memory is conveniently defective.

It was a repudiation of the administration Powell served from that very building. Maybe that's why the Clinton State Department, even in these lean times, spared no expense for its Powell party. Waiters in black tie carried silver trays with wine and hors d'oeuvres to Powell's 300 guests. A musical trio played softly.

COMMENT:  Now Powell should retire, not write his memoirs, and leave us alone.

December 8, 2009   Pemalink

MASSACHUSETTS SENATE - PRIMARY VOTE TODAY - AT 8:28 A.M. ET:  Voters in Massachusetts vote in primaries today to select candidates to run in the January 19th special election.  The winner in January will succeed the late Edward M. Kennedy.  CNN reports:

A University of New Hampshire poll conducted for The Boston Globe in late November showed state Attorney Gen. Martha Coakley leading her closest rival, U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano, by 21 percentage points. Of those surveyed by UNH, 43 percent chose Coakley, 22 percent picked Capuano, 15 percent selected Boston Celtics co-owner Steve Pagliuca and 6 percent said nonprofit executive Alan Khazei was their choice. The UNH/Globe poll is consistent with surveys conducted by other academic institutions.

The Republican candidates, state Sen. Scott Brown and attorney Jack E. Robinson, were not included in the poll. But Brown, who was endorsed by the Globe and The Boston Herald, is expected to win the GOP primary.

COMMENT:  There is a depressing sideshow going on in lefty, trendy, Massachusetts politics:  The Democratic candidates are doing back flips to distance themselves from President Obama's surge in Afghanistan.  The leading candidates have all come out against it, the better to win Cambridge, home of Harvard, and the Democratic equivalent of Mecca.

December 8, 2009   Permalink

SARAH AND BARACK - IN A WAY, TOGETHER AGAIN - AT 8:18 A.M. ET:  Andrew Malcolm, in the L.A. Times' Top of the Ticket blog, reports that Sarah Palin is closing the polling gap on Barack Obama.  This should bring smiles:

The new CNN/Opinion Research Poll shows Palin now at 46% favorable, just one point below her fellow basketball fan.

(The same poll, btw, has bad news for Dick Cheney-haters; the outspoken former VP has climbed out of the 29% basement back up to 39% now. How do you suppose he's done that without a new book? But that's another story.)

Not that either Palin or Obama will admit caring about such trivial things as disparate political polls....

...1,071 days before the 2012 election, when Republicans will have the concept of change on their side. Although Obama's camp is already using the looming Palin pall as a fundraising tool. Never let any potential threat go unmonetized.

The new numbers seem to indicate that despite oft-cited predictions about the dire impact of Palin resigning her Alaska governor's job last July, a lot of people who don't live in Alaska (and, come to think of it, most people don't live in Alaska) don't seem to care. She wasn't their governor then and she still isn't.

The comeback has begun.  And more:

Palin critics -- and, by golly, there still are some, believe it or not -- say that she's a polarizing political figure.

And they're dead-on correct: 46% like her (including 8 of 10 Republicans), 46% don't (including 7 of 10 Democrats) and only 8% are undecided (no doubt including many who've been living underground since John McCain unveiled his VP GOP running mate in Dayton some15 months ago).

But here's the fascinating, little-noticed catch:

The very same polarization now holds true for Obama, the fresh fellow from the old Chicago Democratic machine who was supposed to bring hope and change to a nation tired of divisive politics and the harsh partisan tone of Washington.

Fully 83% of Democrats approve of him, but only 14% of Republicans do.

Among independents, who provided the crucial winning boost for the Democrat ticket in November 2008, Obama's support has melted to 42% today, in large part over immense spending and deficit concerns.

COMMENT:  It is a far cry from these numbers to a successful run for the presidency, but Sarah's numbers are heading in the right direction, whereas the president's are not. 

What's that old saying about he (or she) who laughs last?

December 8,  2009   Permalink

MONDAY,  DECEMBER 7,  2009

CHILLING - IF THAT'S THE RIGHT WORD - AT 11:38 P.M. ET:  From the Washington Post:

The Obama administration moved closer Monday to issuing regulations on greenhouse gases, a step that would enable it to limit emissions across the economy even if Congress does not pass climate legislation.

Chilling because it once again expands federal power, and makes us all disciples of the god of global warming, whether that god is godlike or not.

The move, which coincided with the first day of the international climate summit in Copenhagen, seemed timed to reassure delegates there that the United States is committed to reducing its emissions even if domestic legislation remains bogged down. But it provoked condemnation from key Republicans and from U.S. business groups, which vowed to tie up any regulations in litigation.

There is an old left-wing tactic, developed in New York in the early sixties, that floods the system with costs, bureaucracy and paperwork.  The ultimate goal is to bring down capitalism.  I can't say this is part of that strategy, but it sure comes close.  The costs here, ordered by the federal government, can be catastrophic.

In Monday's much-anticipated announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency said that six gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, pose a danger to the environment and the health of Americans and that the agency would start drawing up regulations to reduce those emissions.

Should we strive for cleaner air?  Of course we should.  But we can do it without wrecking the economy, paralyzing the recovery, and frustrating entrepreneurship.  Those economic effects will ripple down and affect poor nations the most.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a leading proponent of a Senate climate bill, issued a statement after the EPA's announcement saying, "The message to Congress is crystal clear: Get moving."

I wasn't aware that federal departments tell Congress to get moving.  I wasn't aware that John Kerry was still around either.

December 7, 2009   Permalink

BINGHAMTON UPDATE - AT 8:01 A.M. ET:  We erred this morning in saying there was no detailed update on the Binghamton, New York, murder of a professor by a Muslim graduate student.  It turns out that The New York Times did do a respectable update - although buried on its website - which revealed that authorities had been warned about the killer:

The suspect, Abdulsalam S. al-Zahrani, 46, remained held without bail on Sunday, charged with second-degree murder in the death of the professor, Richard T. Antoun...

...On Sunday, Mr. Zahrani’s roommates — who had lived with him for about three weeks in a three-bedroom apartment in downtown Binghamton — recounted how the suspect, who spoke of financial problems, often mentioned death and said he was being persecuted because he was Muslim.

“I said he was acting oddly, like a terrorist,” said one of the roommates, Souleymane Sakho, a graduate student from Senegal. “When I informed them, it was for them to understand that the guy was violent or he may be violent.”

Mr. Sakho said that he told his academic adviser who is overseeing his dissertation about Mr. Zahrani, and that the adviser referred him to the school’s counseling center. Mr. Sakho said that the head of the counseling center told him to avoid interaction with Mr. Zahrani and said he should look to move out of the apartment.

Another example of an academic institution swinging into action.

A spokesman for Binghamton University declined to comment on what university officials may have been told by Mr. Sakho about Mr. Zahrani’s behavior, citing a continuing investigation by the district attorney of Broome County.

Naturally.

About 10 days ago, the police were called to the three-bedroom apartment, according to Mr. Sakho. He said he was sick of Mr. Zahrani’s constantly asking him if he was afraid of death and told him to stop. Later that night, Mr. Sakho said he told his other roommate, Luis Pena, also a graduate student, that he “had enough of the situation.” Hearing them, Mr. Zahrani came out of his bedroom and accused Mr. Sakho of threatening him, Mr. Sakho said.

“I’m not the kind of person to make threats because I am a peaceful person,” said Mr. Sakho, recalling the conversation. “I just want you to stop what you are doing.”

Mr. Zahrani then called the Binghamton police, who arrived at the apartment several minutes later, Mr. Sakho said.

“I came out and wanted to explain what Zahrani was doing and they told me to go back to my room,” Mr. Sakho said.

COMMENT:  Does this sound familiar?  There had been plenty of warnings about Major Hasan, late of Fort Hood, as well.  Nothing was done, possibly because of political correctness.  Now we know the result.

And we see that there had been warnings in Binghamton.  Nothing was done. 

Political correctness?  We'll see, but it should certainly not be ruled out.

December 7, 2009   Permalink

AND NEXT WEEK - A MILITARY COUP! - AT 6:12 P.M. ET:  Just kidding, just kidding.  But there is a bizarre story out there about the deep concerns of some Democrats, not exactly heirs to FDR, Truman, and Kennedy, who are concerned about too much military influence in the Obama administration.  No, that's serious.  I mean it.  Too much military influence in the Obama administration.  That's like worrying about too much conservative influence at Harvard.  But the Politico has the story:

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, goes before Congress this week, and with him comes this question: Who’s really in charge here, the generals or President Barack Obama?

Did you ever think you'd see that question asked?

The long-awaited hearings, beginning Tuesday before the House and Senate Armed Services committees, are a bookend of sorts to Obama’s address last Tuesday at West Point committing 30,000 more troops to the war effort in Afghanistan. Implicit in the president’s decision is an effective cap of about 100,000 for the American force, but top Democrats fear that unless Obama is more assertive, the military chain of command will undermine his July 2011 target to begin some U.S. withdrawal.

Now, wait.  Are these "top Democrats" saying that the president is weak?  Indecisive?  Ineffective?  Hmm, we hope the GOP is taping this.

“The president’s decision is already being softened and made mush of,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told POLITICO. And within the House and Senate Appropriations committees, senior Democrats — themselves veterans of past wars — have grown increasingly concerned by the political clout of a generation of younger, often press-savvy military commanders.

These guys don't remember Douglas MacArthur, do they?  Are they really afraid that today's media is too pro-military?  The New York Times?  Are we laughing?

McChrystal and his strong ally, Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the U.S. Central Command, are quotable stars in today’s modern media; their wartime budgets not only are large but also give them exceptional discretion that is the envy of their foreign policy partners in the State Department.

Well, yeah.  They're quotable.  They're stars.  They're doing a job.  Where's the problem?

There really isn't any.  In fact, it wasn't the uniformed military, but two Cabinet members - Hillary Clinton and Bob Gates - who kind of fudged the withdrawal date from Afghanistan over the weekend.  And anyone with common sense knows that withdrawal deadlines - a bad idea in the first place - can never be rigid. 

Maybe the Democrats should be more concerned about terrorism than they are about American officers.

December 7, 2009   Permalink

TERROR LATEST - AT 6:01 P.M. ET:  Another alleged terrorist on our own soil.  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The Chicago man with roots in Pakistan who was arrested two months ago for planning to attack a Danish newspaper now faces the much more serious charge that he was deeply involved in planning the 2008 massacre in India that killed more than 150 people, according to court documents filed by the Justice Department.

Court documents charge that David Coleman Headley, 49, an American citizen who is the son of a former Pakistani diplomat and a Philadelphia socialite, conducted extensive surveillance of targets in Mumbai, India, for more than two years prior to the attacks by the terrorist group called Lakshar-e-Taiba, which is based in Pakistan.

Six Americans were among the dead in the attacks on a Mumbai train station, the Oberoi and Taj Mahal hotels and other sites.

COMMENT:  Please see our first story today, about homegrown terrorism.  The last year has seen the greatest activity since 2001.  We have been lucky so far, although Fort Hood wasn't so lucky. 

And, again, this calls into question the awful decision to try the mastermind of 9-11 in an ordinary civilian court in New York.  All this does is encourage others, who may well feel that they, too, if caught, will be given a platform to espouse their views.

Cancel that decision, Attorney General Holder!

December 7,  2009   Permalink

IT'S THE RUSSKIES, IT'S THE RUSSKIES, PASS IT ON! - AT 10:26 A.M. ET:  The Sherlock Holmes unit at the U.N. has now solved Climategate.  Who hacked those -mails?  It's the same old culprits, isn't it?

UN officials have likened the theft of e-mails from university climate researchers to the Watergate scandal, after claiming computer hackers were probably paid by people intent on undermining the Copenhagen summit.

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said that the theft from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was not the work of amateur climate sceptics, but was a sophisticated and well-funded attempt to destroy public confidence in the science of man-made climate change. He said the fact that the e-mails were first uploaded to a sceptic website from a computer in Russia was an indication that the culprit was paid.

“It’s very common for hackers in Russia to be paid for their services,” he said. “If you look at that mass of e-mails a lot of work was done, not only to download the data, but it’s a carefully made selection of e-mails and documents that’s not random at all. This is 13 years of data and it’s not a job of amateurs.”

COMMENT:  This is the first time the U.N. has ever blamed the Commies for anything.  Someone at headquarters apparently didn't get the party line.  Tomorrow they'll get it right and blame Americans.

December 7, 2009   Permalink

HEALTH CARE UPDATE - AT 9:36 A.M. ET:  There's a major vote involving the health "reform" bill in the Senate today, and it could have a profound effect on the final outcome.  From the Washington Examiner:

A pep talk by President Obama wasn't enough to give Senate Democrats the votes they needed to pass a massive health care overhaul, but a Monday vote on abortion funding could determine whether the legislation survives.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the chamber would take up an amendment by Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., that would strictly prohibit taxpayer money from being spent on abortion.

"I want to get it out of the way," Reid said. "I think we all do."

But the amendment could ultimately stand in the way of the bill's final passage, no matter what the outcome of the Monday vote.

The decision on the abortion amendment will be a decisive moment. If it fails, anti-abortion Democrats including Nelson and Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., may vote against the final bill. But if the amendment passes, the party's many senators who support abortion access, such as Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., could walk away.

COMMENT:  Passage of a final bill is not at all certain, although Democrats are determined to pass something, anything, just to say they've passed it.  There has still been no coherent explanation of what's in this monstrous bill.  Most Americans are against it, probably because they intelligently don't want something passed unless they understand it fully.

December 7, 2009   Permalink

ADVENTURES IN PRESS FREEDOM - AT 9:07 A.M. ET:  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.  This is really incredible, from The Politico:

Executives at National Public Radio recently asked the network’s top political correspondent, Mara Liasson, to reconsider her regular appearances on Fox News because of what they perceived as the network’s political bias, two sources familiar with the effort said.

Fox's political bias?  Fox's?  Has anyone ever listened to NPR?

According to a source, Liasson was summoned in early October by NPR’s executive editor for news, Dick Meyer, and the network’s supervising senior Washington editor, Ron Elving. The NPR executives said they had concerns that Fox’s programming had grown more partisan, and they asked Liasson to spend 30 days watching the network.

At a follow-up meeting last month, Liasson reported that she’d seen no significant change in Fox’s programming and planned to continue appearing on the network, the source said.

NPR’s focus on Liasson’s work as a commentator on Fox’s “Special Report” and “Fox News Sunday” came at about the same time as a White House campaign launched in September to delegitimize the network by painting it as an extension of the Republican Party.

COMMENT:  Mara Liasson is an honest, effective contributor to Fox News.  The action by Meyer and Elving strikes me as grossly inappropriate and humiliating.  If NPR wants to discourage its people from appearing on all television outlets, fine.  But singling out Fox appears to be a case of blatant bias, not that NPR has ever been guilty of bias.  I choked on that.

December 7, 2009    Permalink

PETRAEUS ON AHMADINEJAD - AT 8:45 A.M. ET:  From Economic Times, via the invaluable Planet Iran:  General David Petraeus, head of Central Command, believes that the Iranian president is serving at least one useful purpose:

WASHINGTON: Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is driving worried Gulf countries into US arms with his threats to expand Tehran’s suspect nuclear programme, the top American general in the region said on Sunday.

“President Ahmadinejad and the Irani (Iranian) leaders continue to be the best recruiters for Central Command as we embark on our partnership plans,” General David Petraeus said on Fox News.

“They’ve caused enormous worry and concern by those on the western side of the Gulf,” said Petraeus, the head of US Central Command.

He also said most experts question Iran’s ability to build 10 more uranium enrichment plants, “or anything remotely approaching that," as the Iranian leader threatened last week.

Ahmadinejad issued the threat after the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, censured it for building a second undeclared uranium enrichment plant, which the United States fears is aimed at producing fissile material for nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad, spurning a Western offer for foreign countries to enrich its uranium for a research nuclear reactor in Tehran, has gone on to vow that Iran would enrich its uranium stockpile to 20 per cent on its own.

COMMENT:  Iran will be a giant issue in 2010.  The question is how seriously the civilian leadership of the United States takes it.  So far, all we've heard is talk, and vague plans for new sanctions, which would have to have the approval of nations, like China, which has already said it opposes them.  Not much of a strategy, I think.

December 7, 2009   Permalink 

THE THREAT - AT 8:01 A.M. ET:  We observe December 7th, as our generation has observed it for decades, as the "day of infamy," when the United States, in the midst of peace negotiations with Japan, was suddenly attacked by that nation.  Pearl Harbor was the center of the assault, with attacks elsewhere in the Pacific as well.

Since December 7, 1941, the notion of a sudden, sneak attack has resonated with Americans.

On September 11, 2001, we learned again the reality of a sneak attack.  More Americans died that day than at Pearl Harbor.

The threat is still very real.  The great Ed Lasky of American Thinker alerts us to a piece in the Los Angeles Times that reports on just how real it is:

Reporting from Washington - The Obama administration, grappling with a spate of recent Islamic terrorism cases on U.S. soil, has concluded that the country confronts a rising threat from homegrown extremism.

Anti-terrorism officials and experts see signs of accelerated radicalization among American Muslims, driven by a wave of English-language online propaganda and reflected in aspiring fighters' trips to hot spots such as Pakistan and Somalia.

Europe had been the front line, the target of successive attacks and major plots, while the U.S. remained relatively calm. But the number, variety and scale of recent U.S. cases suggest 2009 has been the most dangerous year domestically since 2001, anti-terrorism experts said:

And yet, there has also been a studied indifference by much of the mainstream media.  Indeed, it often goes beyond indifference.  After the Fort Hood massacre, mainstream journalists did backflips to avoid mentioning the possibility that this was an act of terrorism, although the evidence was plainly there.  We were assured that Major Hasan, the shooter, was just one stressed out guy.

Just a few days ago, a professor in Binghamton, New York, was shot to death by a Muslim graduate student.  News reports say the student had made extremist comments, believed he was persecuted, and, today, we find out he ridiculed his Christian roommates over their religion.  The deceased professor was apparently a Muslim convert to Judaism, and his wife worked for a Jewish organization.  Yet, we look in vain this morning for any detailed examination of this murder by the mainstream media.  Nothing to see here folks, nothing to see.

Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issued her strongest public comments yet on the homegrown threat.

"We've seen an increased number of arrests here in the U.S. of individuals suspected of plotting terrorist attacks, or supporting terror groups abroad such as Al Qaeda," Napolitano said in a speech in New York. "Home-based terrorism is here. And, like violent extremism abroad, it will be part of the threat picture that we must now confront."

Officials acknowledged that her tone had changed, though they said terrorism has been her focus since becoming Homeland Security chief.

And...

Some feel radicalization in the United States has been worse than authorities thought for some time.

"People focused on the idea that we're different, we're better at integrating Muslims than Europe is," said Zeyno Baran, a scholar at the Hudson Institute, a think tank in Washington. "But there's radicalization -- especially among converts [and] newcomers, such as the Somali case shows. I think young U.S. Muslims today are as prone to radicalization as Muslims in Europe."

Why not?  On some college campuses their extreme views are portrayed as just "another narrative."

Finally:

In contrast to the heightened extremist activity in the United States, Europe has remained relatively calm this year. But the West needs to keep up its guard on both sides of the Atlantic, said Farhad Khosrokhavar, an Iranian French scholar who interviewed jailed extremists for his book "Inside Jihadism."

"You can be middle-class and have bright prospects but become a jihadist," he said. "We have to broaden the analysis. This idea of American exceptionalism, the comparison with Europe, should not blind us to the fact that we are going toward a broader participation in jihad."

COMMENT:  The Los Angeles Times, a very liberal paper, is to be commended for this report.  Please read the whole thing. 

December 7,  2009   Permalink