I was a guest today on Silvio Canto Jr.'s excellent internet show.  We discussed the Apollo 11 moon mission, and also recalled Walter Cronkite.  For those interested, you can hear it here.  Silvio runs a very spirited website here.

TUESDAY,  JULY 21,  2009

SCIENCE NEWS - AT 11:02 P.M. ET:  From AP:

HONOLULU (AP) -- Hawaii was chosen Tuesday as the site for the world's biggest telescope, a device so powerful that it will allow scientists to see some 13 billion light years away and get a glimpse into the early years of the universe.

COMMENT:  Maybe they should use it to try to find the president's birth certificate.

July 21, 2009   Permalink

DON'T HOLD THE MAYO - AT 5:53 P.M. ET:  More rain on the president's health plan, this time from a major authority:

A world-renowned clinic that President Obama held up as an example of good medicine said Monday that the American people would be "losers" under the House's health care proposal, joining the growing chorus of critics the Obama administration is trying to fend off as the debate intensifies from Capitol Hill to Main Street.

Minnesota's not-for-profit Mayo Clinic, which Mr. Obama has repeatedly hailed as offering top quality care at affordable costs, blasted the House Democrats' version of the health care plan as lawmakers continue to grapple with several bills from each chamber and multiple committees.

The Mayo Clinic said there are some positive elements of the bill, but overall "the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher quality, more affordable health care for patients."

"In fact, it will do the opposite," clinic officials said, because the proposals aren't [R]patient-focused or results-oriented. "The real losers will be the citizens of the United States."

COMMENT:  Well, when the White House loses the Mayo Clinic, maybe it's time to go back to the planning stage.  Problem is, there apparently wasn't any planning stage.  The president himself admitted, in a stunning moment, that he didn't actually know a major provision of the bill before the House. 

This administration has to graduate from its student government phase.

July 21, 2009   Permalink

THE BLUE DOGS BARK - AT 5:16 P.M. ET:   Moderate and conservative Democrats are asserting themselves in Congress more strongly than they have in years, and the results are starting to show.  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Fiscally conservative House Democrats forced leaders of their party on Tuesday to slow the pace of work on legislation to overhaul the health care system to consider their concerns about the cost of the bill, its expansion of federal power and the contours of a proposed new government health insurance plan.

The fiscal conservatives, members of the House Blue Dog Coalition, pressed their concerns on President Obama at a White House meeting. The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, postponed a session of the panel, scheduled for Tuesday, so he could meet with Blue Dogs, who hold 8 seats on the committee, a potentially decisive number, since the panel includes 36 Democrats and 23 Republicans.

COMMENT:  For decades, starting in 1939, Congress was essentially run by a coalition of moderate Democrats and cooperative Republicans.  We may see those times again, saving the nation from the California and Massachusetts Democratic delegations. 

The health-care "reform" bill is indeed running into heavy opposition from the competent and the sane.  Unless Obama truly pulls something out of the hat, the bill will either fail or be heavily modified in the correct direction.

Now let's see the Blue Dogs make their presence felt on foreign policy.

By the way, if you want a definition of "Blue Dog Democrat," just Google in the term.  You'll get plenty of information.

July 21, 2009   Permalink

THE BURMA ROAD...TO NUKES - AT 10:39 A.M. ET:  AP is reporting, via Fox News, a disturbing development on the nuke proliferation front, the possibility that Burma may be seeking to join the radioactive club, with a little help from its North Korean friends:

SEOUL, South Korea — The recent aborted voyage of a North Korean ship, photographs of massive tunnels and a top secret meeting have raised alarm bells that one of the world's poorest nations may be aspiring to join the nuclear club — with help from its friends in Pyongyang. No one expects military-run Burma, renamed Myanmar, to obtain an atomic bomb anytime soon, but experts have the Southeast Asian nation on their radar screen.

"There's suspicion that something is going on, and increasingly that cooperation with North Korea may have a nuclear undercurrent. We are very much looking into it," says David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington, D.C. think tank.

And...

Alert signals sounded recently when a North Korean freighter, the Kang Nam I, headed toward Burma with undisclosed cargo. Shadowed by the U.S. Navy, it reversed course and returned home earlier this month.

It is still not clear what was aboard. U.S. and South Korean officials suspected artillery and other non-nuclear arms, but one South Korean intelligence expert, citing satellite imagery, says the ship's mission appeared to be related to a Burma nuclear program and also carried Scud-type missiles.

The expert, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said North Korea is helping Burma set up uranium- and nuclear-related facilities, echoing similar reports that have long circulated in Burma's exile community and media.

COMMENT:  This is the price we pay for negotiating with the North Koreans, year after year, without any satisfactory result.  And you get the feeling that the Obama crowd will talk a good game, and do nothing in the end that would upset the left wing of the Democratic Party or the editorial board of The New York Times.

To show you how pathetic it is, Hillary Clinton  - from whom better could be expected - was on Fox last night, interviewed by Greta Van Susteren.  Clinton actually asked for help if Fox viewers had any information on North Korean proliferation.  I am not kidding.  This does not send a message of either seriousness or competence.  Surprised at Clinton.

July 21, 2009    Permalink

GOP ACCENTUATES THE NEGATIVE - AT 9:41 A.M. ET:  From The Washington Post:

Emboldened by divided Democrats and polls that show rising public anxiety about President Obama's handling of health care and the economy, Republicans on Monday launched an aggressive effort to link the two, comparing the health-care bills moving through Congress to what they labeled as a failed economic stimulus bill.

And the news Monday that the Obama administration would delay release of a congressionally mandated report on the nation's economic conditions only stoked the rhetoric, spawning GOP speculation that the White House is trying to avoid bad news amid the health-care debate.

Okay, that's fine.  The GOP must oppose reckless stuff.  But here's the other part of the story, which I found disturbing:

Lacking unity on an alternative agenda to Obama's health-care plans, Republicans have instead focused on a strategy of rallying public opposition and wooing the conservative Democrats in Congress, whose votes will ultimately determine the fate of any health-care bill. That plan depends in large part on Congress going on break before it votes on a bill. On Monday, though, Republicans made clear that they see an opportunity to derail the legislation now.

COMMENT:  How many years have Republicans had to come up with their own plan?  Look, the health-care system needs improvement.  Republicans cannot just oppose anything Democrats suggest. 

This is a time for something like Newt's Contract with America, in 1994.  The party must demonstrate that it has ideas, that it can fix problems, and make those fixes work. 

Americans like a positive approach.  Naysayers don't last that long.

July 21, 2009   Permalink

ANOTHER POLL TO KEEP OFF MICHELLE'S READING LIST - AT 8:10 A.M. ET:  From the Politico. 

Trust in President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies to identify the right solutions to problems facing the country has dropped off significantly since March, according to a new Public Strategies Inc./POLITICO poll.

Just as Obama intensifies his efforts to fulfill a campaign promise and reach an agreement with Congress on health care reform, the number of Americans who say they trust the president has fallen from 66 percent to 54 percent. At the same time, the percentage of those who say they do not trust the president has jumped from 31 to 42.

The president’s party has taken a similar hit since the last Public Trust Monitor poll, with only 42 percent of respondents saying that they trust the Democratic Party, compared with 52 percent who do not. The party’s numbers are nearly the inverse of March’s survey, in which 52 percent said they trusted Democrats and 42 percent did not.

COMMENT:  The speed of the Obama slide is remarkable.  Equally remarkable is that the president is failing for exactly the same reasons identified by his critics, and laughed at by the press, during the 2008 campaign - leftist orientation, lack of experience, vague leadership skills, little understanding of how the world really works.

But, caution:  Presidents can also recover.  Bill Clinton recovered enough to be reelected in 1996.  Harry Truman's comeback is the meat of legends.  Our side is gaining, but elections, not temporary polls, determine power.

July 21, 2009   Permalink

SENATORS TO BAMA:  GET TOUGH WITH IRAN - AT 7:51 A.M. ET:  Now members of Congress, apparently sensing Obama's rapid decline, are pushing him to toughen his stand on Iran, writing instructions into legislation.  We'll see if liberals can stop this, or will even try:

Republican Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain, Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman, and Democratic Senator Evan Bayh urged the president to prepare sanctions targeting the Central Bank of Iran in the case of a diplomatic stalemate.

The four lawmakers introduced a bill calling on the president to act if Iran does not accept his offer of direct talks before a late September summit of the Group of 20 or fails to freeze uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities 60 days after that.

"Whether one believes 'engaging' directly with the regime in Teheran will accomplish anything, there is no question that time is of the essence," AFP quoted Kyl, the chamber's number two Republican as saying.

"Every day that passes is time that the Iranians use to perfect a nuclear weapon and stockpile nuclear weapons material," said Kyl.

COMMENT:  Good move.  Let's see if the White House is smart enough to encourage passage rather than demand its prerogatives in foreign policy.  Someone must be looking at the poll numbers.  You can be sure Hillary is, at whatever hotel she's in today.

July 21, 2009   Permalink

THE LIBERAL HOUR, COME AND GONE - AT 7:14 A.M. ET:  Watching the current liberal train wreck reminds us that the genius of American politics, traditionally, has been that it's practical.  Americans are an idealistic people, but not an ideological people.  There are some who do follow a party line - you know them by the Ivy League stickers on the windows of their Volvos - but they are a minority.

David Brooks of The New York Times assesses the current train wreck, caused by those who misunderstood their own nation:

The party is led by insular liberals from big cities and the coasts, who neither understand nor sympathize with moderates. They have their own cherry-picking pollsters, their own media and activist cocoon, their own plans to lavishly spend borrowed money to buy votes.

This ideological overreach won’t be any more successful than the last one. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday confirms what other polls have found. Most Americans love Barack Obama personally, but support for Democratic policies is already sliding fast.

And this despite the in-the-tank mainstream media.

We’re only in the early stages of the liberal suicide march, but there already have been three phases. First, there was the stimulus package...

...Then there is the budget...

...Finally, there is health care. Every cliché Ann Coulter throws at the Democrats is gloriously fulfilled by the Democratic health care bills. The bills do almost nothing to control health care inflation. They are modeled on the Massachusetts health reform law that is currently coming apart at the seams precisely because it doesn’t control costs.

Many of these leading Dem liberals go home to congressional districts where Bush (!!) is a curse word, Cheney (!!!!) is Hitler, and Osama bin Laden is a misunderstood idealist, like Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh.  (Ah, recall our youth!)

Nancy Pelosi has lower approval ratings than Dick Cheney and far lower approval ratings than Sarah Palin. And yet Democrats have allowed her policy values to carry the day — this in an era in which independents dominate the electoral landscape.

Oh, savor that paragraph.  Reprint it.  Send it around.  A quote like that makes the day bearable.

Machiavelli said a leader should be feared as well as loved. Obama is loved by the Democratic chairmen, but he is not feared. On health care, Obama has emphasized cost control. The chairmen flouted his priorities because they don’t fear him.

Applies internationally as well.  Who's afraid of big, bad Bama?

That leaves matters in the hands of the Blue Dog Democrats. These brave moderates are trying to restrain the fiscal explosion. But moderates inherently lack seniority (they are from swing districts). They are usually bought off by leadership at the end of the day.

And so here we are again. Every new majority overinterprets its mandate. We’ve been here before. We’ll be here again.

COMMENT:  Will Obama be able to save himself?  Will Republicans, who are not themselves winning any popularity contests, be able to exploit the Democratic kamikaze campaign?  Will the media, if only for its own survival, become more critical of the anointed prince?

Stay tuned.  Bette Davis was correct.  It's going to be a bumpy night.*

Isn't this fun?

(*"All About Eve," 1950)

July 21, 2009   Permalink

MONDAY,  JULY 20,  2009

SPECIAL ESSAYS FOR TODAY:

SIX MONTHS - Barack Hussein Obama Jr. became president of the United States six months ago today. 

He delivered an inaugural address, not one word of which has been quoted in the six months since.  That followed a political campaign in which he delivered a speech on race, billed as the most important ever given by a presidential candidate, and not one word of which has been quoted afterward.

In the half year since inauguration, President Obama has given many, many speeches, all of which, save one, have been forgotten.  The one exception is the address he gave in Cairo to his brothers in the Muslim world, remembered only because so many observers pointed out so many factual errors.

We have learned much about Obama in these six months, and one thing we've learned is the same thing we eventually realized about another well-spoken Illinoisan, Adlai Stevenson, some half century ago - that there is about this man, underneath the golden words, a remarkable shallowness.  As a nation, we like him, but increasingly do not trust him.  We admire him as a personal role model for minority youngsters, but increasingly do not believe in his policies.  We enjoy him as a man, yet increasingly we are losing confidence in him as a leader.

On that bleak day in 1986 when Challenger exploded above Cape Canaveral, an ordinary citizen, reflecting on how President Reagan would respond, assured me, "He knows what to do."  Few use those words about President Obama.  After six months, we are unsure that "he knows what to do." 

And that is the tragedy.  A president who came to office with such promise has produced a foreign policy that projects apology and weakness, and which is achieving nothing.  A president who sought to transform his country, for better or worse, turned his legislative program over to a congressional leadership with a documented history of confusion and failure.  The clearest vision this administration has is a backward view - the insistence that every problem was caused by Mr. Obama's predecessor.

As Americans, we want each president to succeed, assuming we can agree with a president's definition of success.  Today we are watching a president fail, despite all the cheerleading from a press that has become a public embarrassment. 

That is not change we can believe in.  Unless there is improvement, a new maturity, a new competence, millions of Americans will seek to replace the government we have just put in place. 

Can we do it?  Yes we can.

July 20, 2009   Permalink 

FORTY YEARS - Man walked on the moon 40 years ago today. 

Yet, remarkably, one quarter of all young people believe it was a hoax.  What a comment on the "educational" system that serves us, and which has, in the four decades since the depressing sixties, done so much to tear down the image of America in the minds of its young.

But we did go to the moon - unless, of course, you believe that a conspiracy of thousands, not one of whom talked, perpetrated a fraud.  If you believe that, you probably believe 9-11 was an inside job and that the Japanese planes above Pearl Harbor were filled with high-spending tourists.

The flight to the moon celebrated American greatness - imagination, capability, determination.  President Kennedy had set the goal, and the goal was reached.  Few Americans complained about the cost because they understood that there was something larger than material gain in the moon flight - there was a spiritual quest that defines, more than budgets and scientific equations, a great nation.

Are we a great nation today?  Of course we are.  But we are suffering under the weight of failing institutions - our universities, our media - that are diminishing our greatness, and even mocking it.  After all, the most covered story of 1969 was the flight to the moon.  The most covered story so far in 2009 was the death of Michael Jackson.  Please compare.

In 1969 we still had veterans of World War II who were in their forties.  Men and women who'd built and flown propeller planes in the greatest conflict in human history saw their country embark upon, and succeed in, the greatest adventure in human history.  They knew that the emblem placed on the moon was an American flag, rather than a Nazi swastika, because of their sacrifice.

Today there are too many Americans who doubt sacrifice, or even ridicule it.  That attitude was encouraged by some of the social upheavals that, like the moon flight, also defined the sixties.

Which spirit will we have in the future - the spirit of '69, and the flight to the moon, or the other spirit of the sixties, which sought to tear down rather than to build?  It is up to us to reclaim the good and reject the dismal.  That is the new challenge we face, and the outcome is always in doubt.

July 20, 2009    Permalink

----------------------------------------------------------

OUR REGULAR ITEMS:

SHE SPEAKS AGAIN - AT 7:54 P.M. ET:  The New York Times has published the reactions of a number of prominent Americans to the moon landing, 40 years ago today.

Ordinarily, these "I was there" statements are pretty routine, sometimes a bit outlandish, rarely that interesting.  But one stood out in the Times review.  Once again we have the privilege of dissecting the pathetic incoherence of Gloria Steinem.  I was in journalism in New York at the time when Steinem was making herself famous.  Even then I thought, along with many others, that, if it hadn't been for her extraordinary good looks, no one would have cared. 

Agree with them or not, some of the feminist writers of that period had something to say.  Betty Friedan was a Marxist, less than honest, and personally obnoxious, but one could debate her serious ideas.  By contrast, Steinem was the consummate self promoter, dashing out one silly line after another, knowing they'd get attention.  ("A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.")  Like too many feminists, she allowed her hard left ideology to control her.  Even after the attacks of 9-11, she could not manage a word of sympathy for her own country.

Her comments about the moon shot reflected her intellectual limitations, which were extreme:

Huge sums being justified by cold war arguments about militarizing space, and there was no way to vote for using that money to solve big problems on Earth.

I don't recall that the moon shot was about militarizing space, and there were certainly ways to vote down the space program...if one actually had the votes.  Like many Marxists, Steinem believes that she represents "the people" and their interests, but that those ignorant masses just don't realize it.  Hence, the votes were never there.

You would think that a prominent "feminist" would understand the medical and scientific benefits of space exploration, and would acknowledge the role of female astronauts.  But that would require the five or ten seconds of thought that are beyond Steinem's range. 

Steinem's anthem was never really, "I am Woman."  It was more like, "There's No Business Like Show Business."

There's a time to get off the stage.  Some people stay years beyond their time.

July 20, 2009   Permalink

MORE OBAMAN CRAZINESS - AT 4:31 P.M. ET:  It is simply remarkable to see the Obama crowd, in the Honduras crisis, siding with Chavez, Ortega and Castro. 

It really is back to the sixties for the Obamans:

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras (AP) -- The United States is turning up pressure on the Honduran government installed by a coup -- and the businessmen who support it -- warning that they will face severe sanctions if ousted President Manuel Zelaya is not restored to power.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called interim President Roberto Micheletti to say there would be serious consequences if his government ignores international mediation for Zelaya's return.

Her call on Sunday came as talks mediated by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias stalled due to the refusal of Micheletti's delegates to accept demands for Zelaya's return.

COMMENT:  Nothing like a little bias in that first paragraph.  It wasn't a military coup.  The military only acted on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court.  And businessmen aren't the only ones who support the new government.  This is the journalistic left in full bloom.

Wouldn't it be something if we turned out to be tougher on this new, entirely legitimate government in Honduras, installed by constitutional means, than we are on Iran or North Korea.  But it would fit the apparent instincts of our fearless leader.

July 20, 2009   Permalink

YOU, TOO, HILLARY? - AT 10:45 A.M. ET:  I don't think comments like this do the United States, or Hillary Clinton, much good:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said North Korea should not receive the attention it is seeking through behavior like missile launches and likened Pyongyang's behavior to that of unruly children.

And...

"And maybe it's the mother in me or the experience that I've had with small children and unruly teenagers and people who are demanding attention -- don't give it to them, they don't deserve it, they are acting out," she said.

Small children don't have access to nuclear weapons or ICBMs.  Very surprised at Clinton, who knows better.

Clinton also downplayed the threat that North Korea poses to the United States, saying: "They don't pose a threat to us. We know that our allies, Japan and South Korea, are very concerned."

COMMENT:  First, North Korea poses a grave threat to us because it proliferates.  Second, yeah, our allies our very concerned, and this administration has shown precious little interest in the feelings of allies, like Japan, South Korea, Britain, France, Germany, and Israel.  Lots of feelings, though, for Hugo Chavez and his close, personal friends.

July 20, 2009   Permalink

ANOTHER POLL STUNNER - AT 10:16 A.M. ET:  We'll be following this.

Drudge is reporting that Rasmussen is about to release a poll showing Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in a dead heat, 45% each, in a 2012 matchup.  Also, Obama 48%, Sarah Palin 42%.  After all the abuse Sarah has taken, that's spectacular.

Stand by.

July 20, 2009   Permalink

POLL STUNNER - AT 9:45 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen has just reported that President Obama's overall approval rating has fallen to 50%, the first time that has happened in the Rasmussen survey. 

Disapproval is at 49%.  The gap is one point.  If the trend continues, Mr. Obama will be in negative territory only six months into his presidency.

One thing is clear:  The novelty of an African-American president has worn off.   Americans are now looking at policies, and how those policies will change their lives.  They don't like what they see.  Unless there is a corrective, the president will face a serious political problem just as the 2010 midterm campaigns are starting.

July 20, 2009    Permalink 

NOW COUGH AND FEEL THE PAIN - AT 9:21 A.M. ET:  Writing in Newsweek, Ted Kennedy and Robert Shrum say this:

We also need to move from a system that rewards doctors for the sheer volume of tests and treatments they prescribe to one that rewards quality and positive outcomes. For example, in Medicare today, 18 percent of patients discharged from a hospital are readmitted within 30 days--at a cost of more than $15 billion in 2005. Most of these readmissions are unnecessary, but we don't reward hospitals and doctors for preventing them. By changing that, we'll save billions of dollars while improving the quality of care for patients.

Writing in Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol shreds that argument:

Now first of all, if there are problems with Medicare, the laws and regulations governing Medicare--a government program--can be changed, without a government take-over of the rest of the system. Second, given that first diagnoses are often wrong or that hospital treatments lead to unanticipated complications, it’s not so clear on the face of it that an 18 percent readmission rate within 30 days for elderly patients is unreasonable. And third, even if the whole $15 billion worth of hospital readmissions were unnecessary (which can’t be case), $15 billion per year is less than 1 percent of our health care spending.

But the most important implication of the Kennedy-Shrum claim--“Most of these readmissions are unnecessary, but we don’t reward hospitals and doctors for preventing them. By changing that, we’ll save billions of dollars.”--is this: The government is going to decide--ahead of time, obviously, since deciding after the fact wouldn’t save any money; and based on certain general criteria, since the government isn’t going to review each individual case--what kinds of hospital readmissions for the elderly are “unnecessary” and what kinds aren’t. And it’s going to set up a system “to reward hospitals and doctors for preventing” the unnecessary ones. That is, the government will reward hospitals and doctors for denying care they now provide, care the government will now deem “unnecessary.”

COMMENT:  Excellent diagnosis.  This is the kind of discussion we should be having about health-care "reform" - not the shove-it-down-their-ignorant-throats approach of the liberal Democrats in Congress.

Fortunately, there are signs that the runaway freight train of "reform" may be stopped before something reckless is passed, if opponents keep up the fight.

We need improvement in the system.  It would be nice to discuss the changes before they wind up costing lives.

July 20, 2009   Permalink