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.

I appeared on Silvio Canto Jr.'s Dallas-based talk show yesterday.  For those interested, the link to the recording is here.

DECEMBER 14,  2010

FINALLY, THE WINNER REVEALED.  THE ENVELOPE PLEASE – AT 10:18 P.M. ET:   The long, agonizing wait is over.  We have a winner in the category of most annoying word.  I know all of you have been waiting for this.

LIKE, whatever.

For the second year in a row, Americans ranked "whatever" as the most annoying word or phrase used in conversation, a Marist Poll released today found.

Thirty-nine per cent of those polled were most irritated by the oft-used "whatever", while 28 per cent found the term "like" the most offensive.

The rhetorical "you know what I mean?" was ranked third by 15 per cent of those polled, followed by 10 per cent who were most annoyed by the phrase "to tell you the truth".

Last year, "whatever" was crowned most-hated word by 47 per cent of those polled.

If this were Hollywood, "whatever" would already have an agent and a three-picture deal. 

I guess "whatever" is a reasonable choice.  But I'd like to propose some others.  For example, there's "stimulus" and "outreach."  Then we have "change," as in, "Obama will bring change."  A close relative, "change we can believe in," is also high on my list.

And then there's "diversity."  Can we ban it?  Is that Constitutional? 

And my favorite:  "stupid."  It's the most overused judgment used by the political left.  If we don't agree, we're declared "stupid."

Do you have some favorites?  Please send.  We'll have a little contest.

December 14, 2010       Permalink

NOW THEY TELL US – AT 9:25 P.M. ET:  I guess we'll now have to await scanner upgrades, or airport scanners 2.3.  From Fox:

Any would-be terrorist can easily outsmart the ubiquitous backscatter scanners found in major airports around the world, two scientists say.

The Transportation Security Administration's X-ray backscatter scanners have been the center of a widespread controversy, following concerns from privacy advocates that they take nearly naked photos of people. The trade-off is improved security, of course. Yet Leon Kaufman and Joseph W. Carlson, two physics professors at the University of California, San Francisco offer a stark conclusion: They can be easily duped, according to a recent paper published in the Journal of Transportation Security.

"It is very likely that a large (15–20 cm in diameter), irregularly-shaped, cm-thick pancake with beveled edges, taped to the abdomen, would be invisible to this technology -- ironically because of its large volume, since it is easily confused with normal anatomy," the researchers said in the paper. Kaufman and Carlson conclude that some types of foreign objects can be reliable detected only if they are packed outside the sides of the body, and some well hidden items would be impossible to see even with the scanner.

"It is also easy to see that an object such as a wire or a box-cutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible," the paper notes.

COMMENT:  I'm guessing that our Middle Eastern friends, and their allies, are already testing the system by taping non-banned objects to their sides and trying to get through the scanners. 

While the professors are well within their rights to publish their article, I wonder how wise it is.  It gives a pretty good set of instructions to those who would harm us, although that clearly is not the intent.

December 14, 2010      Permalink

WIKI GUY MAKES INTERNATIONAL APPEAL – AT 9:29 A.M. ET:  I'm sure we'll all be moved by this, and may even send in contributions.  From Fox:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange released a statement to an Australian TV network before Tuesday's court appearance in London, asking the world to protect his work.

"I am calling on the world to protect my work and my people from these illegal and immoral attacks," he was quoted as saying to Australia's Seven network.

Assange also denounced companies like Visa and Mastercard for stopping payment to WikiLeaks.

"We now know that Visa, Mastercard, PayPal and others are instruments of U.S. foreign policy," he said in a written statement to Australia's Seven network.

Ah, the tell-tale language of the fringe left.  Are you shocked?

Assange was scheduled to appear in a London court Tuesday seeking to fight his extradition to Sweden in a sex-crimes investigation and trying to secure bail after being held for a week in a British prison cell.

It's amazing how little attention is being paid to the fact that Assange, who makes Benedict Arnold look like a two-bit horse trader, is wanted on a rape charge.  Now, we have to say that he's innocent until proved guilty, but, if he were on the political right, you may be sure he'd be in front of a journalistic firing squad by now. 

Assange is still holding thousands, or tens of thousands, of classified documents.  We brace ourselves for the damage he can still do.

December 14, 2010      Permalink

TAX BILL CLEARS SENATE, BUT HOUSE INSANITY WAITS – AT 9:07 A.M. ET:  We are closer to an extension of the Bush tax cuts, but not yet there.  Some in the outgoing Democratic House appear poised to launch kamikaze attacks.   From the Washington Times:

In an overwhelming bipartisan vote, the Senate on Monday cleared a path for the tax-cut deal President Obama struck with congressional Republicans last week, with even former staunch opponents of the Bush-era tax cuts voting for their extension.

The 83-15 vote ends a filibuster attempt by liberal Democrats and gives a boost to the deal ahead of an expected showdown in the House this week, where Democratic leaders have said they will try to alter the $857 billion package.

"This proves that both parties can, in fact, work together to grow our economy and look out for the American people," said Mr. Obama, who staked his ability to deal with the newly ascendent Republicans on this battle. He urged House lawmakers to follow the Senate's lead and approve the package quickly.

If Congress fails to act, taxes will go up across the board Jan. 1. If Congress passes the Obama-GOP deal, it will benefit many taxpayers, thanks to a short-term payroll-tax cut.

Actually, the provision that most Americans will actually feel is that short-term payroll-tax cut, which was the Obama administration's idea.  Shrewd thinking, and a campaign issue for the Dems at the next election.

The Senate will hold a final vote this week, but action now shifts to the House, where Democratic leaders are wrestling with rank-and-file members who are enraged over the deal. Last week, House Democrats held a nonbinding caucus vote to urge their leaders not to bring the deal to the floor as written.

Don't fret.  There won't be enough of them left when the new Congress comes in to cause much trouble...except for President Obama, now regarded on the silly left as a sellout.  Are you believing that?

December 14, 2010      Permalink

KEEP YOUR FRIENDS CLOSE, AND YOUR ENEMIES CLOSER – AT 8:37 A.M. ET:  First, President Obama hands over the keys to the White House to Bill Clinton for a day, and now he raises Hillary to sainthood.  Is there a motive here? 

There is a growing bipartisan consensus that Hillary Clinton is the best ever Secretary of State, US President Barack Obama has said. His decision to appoint Clinton as the Secretary of State was one of his better decisions, the US President has said. 

Obama who made a rare appearance at the Foggy Bottom headquarters of the State Department to attend the holiday reception party hosted by the Washington's vibrant diplomatic community by Clinton said, "I think there's a consensus building that this may be one of the best Secretaries of State we've ever had in this country’s history."

"One of my better decisions," he said amidst laughter.

What's going on here?  Did Obama hear through the grapevine that Hillary might actually challenge him for the nomination in 2012?  Unlikely.  She knows she can't challenge him because of the critical black vote in the Democratic Party.  But she and Bill could conceivably orchestrate a quiet drive for Obama to remove himself before a 2012 disaster.  What better way to avoid such a fate than for Obama to flatter the Clintons.

Or maybe he actually meant what he said.  There's a first time for everything.

December 14, 2010       Permalink

MAN OF STEELE – AT 8:20 A.M. ET:  It had been widely predicted that controversial GOP Chairman Michael Steele would step aside rather than risk defeat by running for a second term.  The predictions were wrong.  From WaPo:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele announced Monday night that he will seek another term as head of the committee next month.

Steele made his announcement during a conference call with members of the RNC, several of whom privately confirmed his comments.

The embattled chairman had been weighing whether to seek another term after an election cycle in which Republicans made substantial gains but the committee encountered major financial problems, leaving it unable to fully fund its usually formidable get-out-the-vote operation. The committee also enters the 2012 campaign - where it will play a prominent role in backing a presidential nominee - in significant debt...

...The 168-member RNC will choose its next chairman at its winter meeting in January.

Even though he is sitting chairman, Steele appears to face an uphill battle. A multi-ballot process means he will need to obtain at least half the vote eventually.

COMMENT:  Steele will probably be defeated.  As the first African-American to hold the post of GOP chairman, his defeat would place the party in a somewhat awkward position.  The Dems will cry racism, but the charge won't stick.  The objections to Steele, who is in many respects a terrific guy, are based on honest disagreement.

The party needs a new chairman.  I would have been happier had Steele graciously stepped aside.

December 14, 2010     Permalink

DECEMBER 13,  2010

AND NOW THE RULING – AT 7:49 P.M. ET:  Part of Obamacare has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in Virginia.  Cautionary note:  This is only one judge.   They have others stored away.  From The New York Times:

A federal district judge in Virginia ruled on Monday that the keystone provision in the Obama health care law is unconstitutional, becoming the first court in the country to invalidate any part of the sprawling act and ensuring that appellate courts will receive contradictory opinions from below. 

Judge Henry E. Hudson, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, declined the plaintiff’s request to freeze implementation of the law pending appeal, meaning that there should be no immediate effect on the ongoing rollout of the law. But the ruling is likely to create confusion among the public and further destabilize political support for legislation that is under fierce attack from Republicans in Congress and in many statehouses.

In a 42-page opinion issued in Richmond, Va., Judge Hudson wrote that the law’s central requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance exceeds the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The insurance mandate is central to the law’s mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured because insurers argue that only by requiring healthy people to have policies can they afford to treat those with expensive chronic conditions.

COMMENT:  This will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court, but it may take a few years.  In the meantime, as the story says, it will add to the confusion and uncertainty over Obamacare.

By the way, the Times's report is emblematic of so much that is wrong with journalism today.  The reporter didn't miss an opportunity to tell us all about the judge's Republican background and Republican sponsorship of opposition to Obamacare.

The opinion by Judge Hudson, who has a long history in Republican politics in northern Virginia, continued a partisan pattern in the health care cases. Thus far, judges appointed by Republican presidents have ruled consistently against the Obama administration while Democratic appointees have found for it.

That has reinforced the notion — fueled by the White House — that the lawsuits are as much a political assault as a constitutional one. The Richmond case was filed by Virginia’s attorney general, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, a Republican, and all but one of the 20 attorneys general and governors who filed a similar case in Pensacola, Fla., are Republicans. Other lawsuits have been filed by conservative law firms and interest groups.

Now, I have absolutely no problem with The Times giving us some of the political background of the case.  It's the hypocrisy and inconsistency that worries me.  The Times, and other papers, routinely refer to far-left operators as "peace activists," "human rights activists," and "progressives," sparing us any semblance of the whole truth.  The only time detail is provided is when it's Republican detail. 

Readers do indeed detect this, and it weakens credibility.  Weren't there once editors?

December 13, 2010        Permalink

BACK TO REALITY – AT 7:14 P.M. ET:  We are reminded that there's a political world, a journalistic world, and a real world.  The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff notes developments in the real world.  From Fox:

The top U.S. military officer said Monday that the danger of war or hostilities on the Korean peninsula is rising, as North Korea warned that cooperation between its southern neighbor and the United States could trigger a nuclear war.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told troops in Baghdad that North Korea has upped the ante in its aggression against South Korea -- a pattern he said is tied to preparations for Kim Jong Il to pass power to his son.

The latest example of bellicose rhetoric came with North Korea warning of nuclear war, as South Korea planned live-fire naval drills to run Monday through Friday. Those drills follow a North Korea artillery attack on front-line Yeonpyeong Island that killed two South Korean marines and two civilians.

The Nov. 23 artillery barrage, the North's first assault to target a civilian area since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War, began after the North said South Korea first fired artillery toward its territorial waters. South Korea says it fired shells southward, not toward North Korea, as part of routine exercises.

COMMENT:  Of course, one reason for the north's aggressiveness is the belief that it can get away with it.  And why shouldn't they think this way?  They have gotten away with it.  There has been very little punishment for their nuclear weapons program, and no punishment to speak of for their sinking of a South Korean naval vessel earlier this year.  And the recent North Korean barrage against a South Korean island has been met by a tap on the wrist with a feather. 

We are going to have a heavy foreign policy year next year.  We can only hope that Obama abandons the left wing of his party and starts defending American interests.

December 13, 2010      Permalink

COULDN'T HAPPEN TO A MORE HUMBLE BUNCH OF GUYS – AT 9:32 A.M. ET:  Everywhere George Soros goes, he spreads a little misery.  There really should be a musical based on him, or at least a song, like "Georgie, the Red-thinking Money Trader."  I love the tune already.  I wish Perry Como were alive.

But now a Soros "gift" may cause real grief for the recipient, especially as that recipient is National Public Radio.  Republicans have NPR in their sights, and I hope their sights are accurate.  From The Politico:

National Public Radio is facing the most serious threat to the "public" part of its identity since Newt Gingrich’s days as speaker, thanks to a resurgent, tea-party-inspired Republican House with budget cuts on its mind and recent stumbles that have left the broadcaster vulnerable to its ideological critics on the right.

By far the greatest and most galvanizing of these issues was the firing of Juan Williams. But some Republicans also are seething over NPR’s announcement of a $1.8 million grant from the Open Society Foundations, founded by financier George Soros, just a few days before Williams was fired.

Republicans, such as Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Reps. Darrell Issa of California and Eric Cantor of Virginia — as well as conservative commentators, such as Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck — have cited the grant in their calls to strip federal funding from NPR.

Budget hawks like Cantor say the grant proves NPR doesn’t need to rely on government money. But the culture warriors, like DeMint and Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), go much further — arguing that NPR’s acceptance of the grant is proof of a leftist agenda.

COMMENT:  I am shocked, shocked, that anyone would think NPR has a leftist agenda.  But it does.  At a time of economic stress, there's a real question as to whether NPR should receive federal funds at all.  Its acceptance of a gift from the agenda-driven Soros makes it clear that NPR has other means of financing.  The federal government might consider availing itself of the opportunity to opt out.  The money is better spent elsewhere.

December 13, 2010       Permalink

'TIS THE SEASON TO BE JOLLY, AND, APPARENTLY, A LITTLE SILLY TOO – AT 9:01 A.M. ET:  The WikiLeaks saga continues to fill news space at a time of year when editors and news directors sometimes have trouble finding solid stories to tell.

I've heard more silliness about WikiLeaks than about any other subject recently.  I think it's absurd for some people to argue that newspapers have a "right" to publish the material that got WikiLeaked, and yet that is the argument one hears from a number of journalists.  The secrets of the United States government are not "news stories."  They are the property of the American people, entrusted to elected leaders and their appointed officials.  In my view, a newspaper does not have a "right" to them. 

Of course, that should never be an absolute position.  There may be extreme circumstances in which a government is acting outrageously, corruptly, or dangerously.  Then, a free press, after very sober consideration, might conclude that it has the obligation and right to make a secret public.  There is plenty of precedent for that, and common-sense guidelines are available.  Compare please with the illegitimate dumping of hundreds of thousands of documents on the open market. 

Some commentators have, however, gotten it right when they say that the real villains are those who supplied the material to WikiLeaks, and it's hard to believe that the Army Pfc the government has in custody did the whole job himself.   I am being strictly speculative here, but the extent of the leaks may tell us about the kind of people hired by the Obama administration, even for sensitive positions.  We know that a number of profoundly leftist types have been recruited, people like the Marxist Van Jones, who was forced to leave the White House last year after his Kremlinesque views became known.  Those views never, apparently, bothered Obama.

It will be a real test of this administration to conduct a thorough probe until the culprits are brought to justice.  I wonder if they have the interest.  The mainstream media certainly doesn't.

December 13, 2010       Permalink

THANK GOODNESS THEY'RE EXTENDING THOSE JOBLESS BENEFITS – AT 8:45 A.M. ET:  From AP:

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has fired his foreign minister and named the nuclear chief to serve as the country's acting top diplomat.

In a brief statement on the president's website Monday, Ahmadinejad thanked Manouchehr Mottaki for his more than five years of service but gave no explanation for change.

Over the past year, Iranian media have reported that lawmakers were pushing for Mottaki to be dismissed if more U.N. Security Council sanctions were imposed in response to the country's nuclear program. According to the reports, the lawmakers argued that he was not a strong or persuasive enough advocate for Iran on the international stage.

COMMENT:  It's so hard to get good help these days.  The importance of this story is that it will give ammunition to those who believe the sanctions are hurting Iran, and that Ahmadinejad is trying to find scapegoats.  The problem with that argument is that, even if some of the sanctions are biting, it does not logically flow that Iran will alter its nuclear program.  There are no signs of that anywhere.

December 13, 2010      Permalink

SWEDISH MEATBALLS – AT 8:27  A.M. ET:  We are fascinated to watch Sweden reacting to a terrorist attack.  Once considered a paradise by the meatball left, Sweden has run into a buzz saw of troubles, while continuing to lecture the U.S. and the rest of the world on our obligations. 

Let's face the painful truth:  The only time we notice Sweden is when IKEA runs out of spare door handles.  So let's give a bit of time to see how they're handling the outrage.  From The New York Times:

STOCKHOLM — A day after two explosions struck central Stockholm, killing the man suspected of being a suicide bomber and wounding two other people, investigators began to focus on the possibility that the person responsible was a disaffected Iraqi-born Swede who had attended college in Britain.

Disaffected in Sweden?  Why, how could that be?

Reports in British and Swedish newspapers, citing government sources, identified the man as Taimour al-Abdaly, a 28-year-old Sunni Muslim whose family moved to Sweden from Baghdad in 1992. Attempts by The New York Times to confirm the reports independently were not immediately successful, and Swedish officials declined to comment, saying the bomber’s identity was part of the investigation.

Yikes.  The Times used the M word.  Does that mean they have to go before some multicultural crimes board?

But the suspect’s possible link to Britain was reinforced Sunday night when the Metropolitan Police in London said officers were searching a property at an address in Bedfordshire, the county in which Mr. Abdaly is believed to have attended college. A spokesman said the search was made “in connection with the incidents in Stockholm.”

Sweden’s prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, told reporters at a news conference that an investigation led by the Swedish intelligence agency Sapo was still working to establish links among the two explosions, the dead man found with blast wounds to his abdomen and the threatening messages sent to the Swedish news agency Tidningarnas Telegrambyra shortly before the explosions.

Mr. Reinfeldt, leader of a center-right coalition, said the police were “treating this as a terrorist action,” but he appealed to Swedes not to jump to “the wrong conclusions” or allow preliminary reports about the explosions to stir fresh tensions over Sweden’s growing immigrant population, including about 450,000 Muslims. Sweden’s “openness is worth giving ourselves the time to get to the bottom of this,” he said.

Same old pacifiers.  We must not think bad thoughts.  But plenty of Swedes have been thinking them for years, as a militant immigrant population refuses to integrate. 

We hope that now the Swedish government will understand why others around the world take terrorism so seriously.  Sweden might send some military and police people to the U.S. to learn the ropes.

December 13, 2010     Permalink