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.

SATURDAY,  FEBRUARY 6,  2010

SARAH – AT 10:58 P.M. ET:  Sarah Palin has addressed the Tea Party convention in Nashville.

I watched and listened.  It was pretty much a standard Sarah speech – lots of red meat, many conservative applause lines.  In my view she has never equalled the speech she gave at the Republican National Convention following her selection as John McCain's running mate.  This was strictly a cheers-and-applause speech.

Sarah Palin is clearly a force within the Republican Party and among conservatives.  But I have yet to see her solve, convincingly, the "Sarah problem," the perception among many that she lacks detailed knowledge of major issues.  She seems comfortable only with generalities, as important as those are.  If she has any intention of running for president, the knowledge gap will have to be filled.  Otherwise, she will not inspire the confidence that she must inspire to run successfully. 

People will argue that it doesn't matter, that she's a crowd favorite.  Well, if you want to see how quickly a crowd favorite can fall from grace, I give you the president of the United States.  He also wowed 'em.

One of the great myths about Ronald Reagan was that he was a crowd pleaser who didn't know much.  He was certainly a crowd pleaser, but he was very well read, very well informed, and had a working understanding of the major issues.  His intellect was disparaged because he was a conservative.  If he'd been a liberal, they would have called him a charming genius.

Sarah, an effective speaker, must now fill in the vague areas.  I think she can do it.

February 6, 2010   Permalink

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS UP – AT 6:38 P.M. ET.  From AFP:

TWO burqa-wearing bank robbers have held up a post office near Paris, using a handgun concealed beneath an Islamic-style full veil, court officials said.

Staff let the pair through the security double doors of the banking branch of the postal office overnight, believing them to be veil-wearing Muslim women, before they flipped back their head coverings and pulled out a gun, officials said.

And...

France is seeking to restrict use of the head-to-toe Islamic veil on the grounds it is incompatible with French values, after a parliament report called for a ban in schools, hospitals, government offices and public transport.

COMMENT:  The French government is correct.  It is not an insult to Islam, and none is intended, to ban a garment that masks the face.  Traditionally, free societies reject masking.  If it's argued that it's a religious practice, we point out that a democratic society is not required to approve every religious demand.

Let me tell you a story.  I was once interviewing Dr. Milton Helperin, the legendary medical examiner of the city of New York, in his office.  In the middle of our talk he received a phone call from an Orthodox rabbi.  It turned out that one of the rabbi's parishioners had died at home, but not in the presence of a physician.  Under law, an autopsy had to be performed to determine cause of death, and rule out foul play.  But Orthodox Judaism frowns on autopsies as an insult to God's creation, the human body, and the rabbi was asking that the autopsy be waived.

Dr. Helperin replied very respectfully, "Rabbi, you know that I can't do that.  The law requires an autopsy, and I must follow the law."  The rabbi backed down.  The autopsy was performed. 

Freedom of religion has never meant the right of any religious group to violate the rule of law or the standards of the society.  Masking is a wrong, violates civil order, clearly raises legitimate security issues, and should be banned. 

February 6, 2010   Permalink

CREDIT WHERE IT'S DUE – AT 6:10 P.M. ET:  The Washington Post, which we cited earlier today for running a fine piece on liberal arrogance, also runs a solid editorial on what we can learn from the Fort Hood massacre.  We give credit where it's due here, and we're happy to point out good material in liberal publications:

A REPORT on the Fort Hood shootings makes two things clear: Systemic changes are needed to avert similar attacks, and systemic failures were only partly to blame for the breakdowns that allowed the alleged shooter, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, to go on a murderous rampage.

Thank you, WaPo, for using the term "murderous rampage."  Other outlets struggle for more politically correct terms, like "frustrated outburst," or the like.

The authors found that protocols and procedures at Walter Reed for evaluating officers are "generally adequate," but that "several officers failed to comply" with them when evaluating Maj. Hasan. For example, "discrepancies exist between the alleged perpetrator's documented performance in official records and his actual performance during his training, residency and fellowship." They conclude that supervisors and colleagues should have been aware of the potential danger posed by Maj. Hasan, but that "some signs were clearly missed; others ignored."

The Post's Dana Priest has documented colleagues' unease with a lecture that Maj. Hasan delivered about the possibility of Muslim service members acting out violently in opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. National Public Radio reported that colleagues and supervisors "bent over backwards" to support Maj. Hasan -- even after he had been reprimanded for proselytizing soldiers -- for fear that they would appear to be "discriminating" against him for his religious views.

The Army must have a further inquiry, argues the Post:

It must answer without flinching whether Maj. Hasan was unjustly promoted because of the Army's desire to retain and promote Muslim service members. It must be candid about whether Maj. Hasan's supervisors gave him unearned passing marks and, if so, whether they were trying to hide problems to encourage another military unit to take the major off their hands.

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter – political correctness forced on the Army by a leftist narrative.

And no policy can succeed if political correctness trumps the truth.

Right.  But that notion is rejected in too many universities and media outlets today, and apparently by elements within the armed services.

February 6, 2010   Permalink

A CRACK IN THE ICE, OR THE HEAT SHIELD, OR SOMETHIN' – AT 11:47 A.M. ET:  Reader, and Professor, Sam Indorante, alerts us to an excellent piece that sums up the disillusion that some people are starting to feel over the global-warming craze.  We're encouraged when journalists join the ranks of those willing to inquire.  From Honolulu magazine:

I never expected the terms “green,” “sustainability” and “carbon footprint” would be hurled at us daily, secular guilt crammed into every consumer choice. But I especially never expected that some of the leading scientists who argue the case for manmade global warming would be revealed as political partisans, who hid evidence against global warming, attempted to redefine the meaning of “peer-reviewed journals” to mean “only peers who agree with us” and, worst of all, conspired to delete data in anticipation of Freedom of Information requests.

That's a delightful mea culpa.  We forgive you for "never expecting."  Neither did most of us. 

Let me back up. Because of manmade global warming, I warned in 1996, that “sea levels could rise as much as three feet by the year 2100 … warming can lead to hotter and more frequent heat waves … stronger and more frequent hurricanes to Hawai‘i … endanger native plants species [and] coral reefs.” These dire predictions came from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia provide much of the IPCC’s analysis and predictions. In November 2009, hackers released thousands of e-mails from the CRU, going back years, and it is these e-mails that reveal the very unscientific, unethical activities I described above.

I feel I’ve been had.

Good!  The more self-revelation like this, the better.  Now we've got to get some of the egos on the left to admit that they, too, have been had. 

This doesn’t necessarily mean manmade global warming is disproven. But it does deflate the certainty and moral righteousness of the Al Gores and the IPCCs of the world. At Copenhagen and in Congress, politicians have proposed massive disruptions to our economies and lifestyles in the name of halting global warming. It turns out they’ve been doing so, at least partly, with books that have been cooked more than the planet.

And there was an Oscar in it for Gore.

People make these kinds of mistakes all the time, and the motives are no mystery. For the researchers, grant dollars and reputations are on the line. For reporters, global warming offers the thrill of covering The Biggest Story Ever Told, an appeal I could not resist. For politicians, it has offered an endless opportunity for grandstanding and power grabs. Convinced they are saving the earth—what could be more rewarding or important?—all three groups helped each other lose their minds.

Finally...

It’s time for scientists to do what science is all about: check their work to see if the results can be reproduced. Fresh eyes need to look at the original data the CRU used, to see if they can independently find the same evidence for warming. But wait—that can’t be done. Somehow, the CRU managed to “lose” all its original data.

How’s that for an inconvenient truth?

Wonderful, wonderful.  But there has been no penetration of the White House, or the left wing of the Democratic Party, which continue as if no questions have been asked.  The reason they do is that, for them, global warming isn't a scientific issue, but a political excuse.  It's an excuse for them to change the way we live, the way society is organized.  That is their dream, part of their totalitarian temptation to control.  Facts mean very little in the face of a grandiose scheme like that...all designed for our improvement, of course.

February 6, 2010    Permalink

RECOMMENDED READING – AT 10:52 A.M. ET:  Occasionally I see a piece of journalism that I must recommend to readers.  Tomorrow's Washington Post has just such an article.

It's called "Why Are Liberals so Condescending?" by Gerard Alexander, associate professor of politics at the University of Virginia.  It is the best analysis of liberal psychology and feelings of superiority that I have ever read in a journalistic piece.  The Washington Post, a liberal paper after all, is to be commended for running it.  You must read it.  There'll be a quiz on Monday.  This is the way it starts:

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension.

And...

This condescension is part of a liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, society and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.

And this is the way it ends:

Even liberals should think twice about the prospect of decisions on innovative surgeries, light bulbs and carbon quotas being directed by legislators grandstanding for the cameras. Of course, thinking twice would be easier if more of them were listening to conservatives at all.

Read, read, read.  There is a rising voice in the academic world.  Send him the body armor.

February 6, 2010   Permalink

SOBRIETY – AT 10:12 A.M. ET:  It's a bit under the radar at the moment, but the Iranian government is running a major campaign to convince governments that it is close to a deal with the West on uranium enrichment.

Not so fast, creeps, says Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, one of the few real grownups in the Obama administration.  Realizing the danger of the Iranian fast hustle, Gates brings us back to reality:

ANKARA (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Saturday he saw no sign a deal was close between Iran and Western powers on exchanging some of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) for higher-grade fuel, suggesting it was time to move forward with sanctions.

"I don't have the sense that we're close to an agreement," Gates told reporters in Ankara where he met Turkish leaders.

His comments stood in contrast to those by Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, who said on Friday he saw good prospects for clinching a deal with world powers on exchanging LEU for higher-grade fuel it can use in a reactor producing medical isotopes.

"If they are prepared to take up the original proposal of the P-5 plus one of delivering 1,200 kilograms of their low enriched uranium, all at once to an agreed party, I think there would be a response to that," he added, referring to the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany.

Gates said President Obama had taken unprecedented steps to engage with Iran, describing the response so far as "disappointing."

Hillary Clinton has said the same thing.  Disappointing.  So far the White House has stayed the negotiations course.  Also disappointing.

"But the reality is they have done nothing to reassure the international community that they are prepared to comply with the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) or stop their progress toward a nuclear weapon, and therefore I think various nations need to think about whether the time has come for a different tack," Gates added, in an apparent reference to sanctions.

But China, just yesterday, reaffirmed that it is opposed to new sanctions.  China has a veto at the Security Council, making UN action all but impossible.  The question now is whether major nations, acting outside the UN, can make sanctions happen.  That may be the diplomatic question of the year.

February 6, 2010   Permalink

CONFIRMATION – AT 9:56 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen's tracker for today confirms the trend of the last week – that the bounce President Obama received from his State of the Union address is fading away:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove which Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15. That matches the President’s ratings just before the State-of-the-Union Address. While Obama received a modest bounce in his ratings following the speech, today’s results suggest that the bounce is over.

The president could have bounced further had he followed the speech with some good governance, but he got mired in the sinking health-care bill, and further mired in the debate over how his Holderized Justice Department handles terrorism.  No great second act.

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That matches the lowest level of overall approval yet measured for this president. Fifty-five percent (55%) now disapprove.

COMMENT:  It is hard to believe how this president has fallen.  He seems unable to slow the slide, except to go on the campaign trail and deliver a speech that has no more lasting effect than cough medicine.

February 6,  2010   Permalink

FRIDAY,  FEBRUARY 5,  2010

CORRECTION – AT 7:28 P.M. ET:  Our post yesterday arguing that there's no such thing as settled science got more reader reaction than anything we've written recently. 

Most was favorable, but a few readers pointed out an error, which I'm glad to correct.  I said that Einstein's general theory of relativity overturned hundreds of years of Newtonian science.  I should have been less grandiose and said that it expanded on Newtonian science, or used a similar construction.  Thanks to reader Walt Bussey for being the first to note the gaffe.  So did another reader, who prefers to remain anonymous.  And so did Frank J. Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University, who explains the argument as follows:

There’s been a great deal of discussion on the “science is settled” question.  Is science ever settled?  When Copernicus published, in 1543, his proposal that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the Solar System, he was attacked for bringing back a theory that had been proposed before the Common Era by the Greek Aristarchus of Samos. The science had been settled centuries before, Copernicus was told. Mr. Katz illustrates this point by writing: “Einstein's general theory of relativity overturned hundreds of years of Newtonian physics.”

Mr. Katz’s point is correct, but alas, his example is not.  In spite of what has been written in the popular books, even books written by professional  physicists, unfortunately Einstein’s general relativity did NOT overturn Newtonian physics. General relativity is a special case of Newtonian  physics, as Einstein (if not some physicists) knew.

Einstein gave a lecture in Leyden, the Netherlands, in which he argued that general relativity was just a form of ether theory, in which the gravitational effects of the ether are taken into account. Einstein also knew that gravity in Newton’s theory is curvature, just as it is in general relativity. The great French mathematician E. Cartan had proven this in the early 1920’s, and had corresponded with Einstein about it.  (Cartan’s proof is available in Chapter 12 of the book, "Gravitation," coauthored by my own teacher, the late Princeton professor John A. Wheeler, who was himself a post-doctoral student of Niels Bohr.)

I blame mainly the MSM for promulgating this error about general relativity.   The British astronomer Arthur Eddington wanted to end the hatred of Germany felt by many Britons in 1919, and what better way than for an Englishman to  test a theory of a German, a theory which, if correct, would overturn the  theory of the greatest English physicist of all time, Isaac Newton.  Eddington sold the MSM of his day a bill of goods, and they ran with it.  They are still running with it.

The climate frauds of today are doing what Eddington did in 1919.  Only they are lying for power and grant money.  Eddington, to his credit, was motivated purely by a desire for peace between nations.

COMMENT:   We have a very informed readership at Urgent Agenda.  It's a pleasure to be corrected by Professor Tipler.

There will be other comments on the "science is settled" issue at our Forum, later tonight.

February 5, 2010   Permalink 

BULLETIN - AT 6:22 P.M. ET:  Washington expected to get up to 30 inches of snow this weekend.

I used to live in Washington.  One inch of snow is a disaster.  Two inches a catastrophe.  Three inches and people prepare for the end.

Thirty inches?  No government for three years.

Celebrate now.

Love this global warming.

February 5, 2010   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 5:57 P.M. ET:  From Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, esteemed legislator, scholar of American history, and all around...well, you finish it:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), appearing before the Democratic National Committee winter meeting this morning, was illustrating the diversity of the Democratic party by painting the touching scene of FDR's final train ride from Georgia to Hyde Park. Then she stumbled.

"There were farmers and black Americans, whatever the name was in those days, Afric- uh -- large numbers of African-Americans, poor people, middle class people, everyone. . . they lined the tracks to pay their respects," Pelosi told an audience at the Capitol Hilton.

COMMENT:  Yeah, whatever the name was in those days.  What respect.  What reverence.  Imagine what she says in private. 

But she's a Democrat, so Jesse Jackson will undoubtedly give her a pass and offer to pray with her...on camera of course.  Hi-fi sound only.

February 5, 2010   Permalink

HE DID IT HIS WAY, UNFORTUNATELY – AT 4:14 P.M. ET:  Apparently, the president of the United States, the "yes we can" guy from Chicago, is throwing health care under the bus, keeping some space open for Eric Holder.  From AP:

WASHINGTON – No, maybe he can't. President Barack Obama, who insisted he would succeed where other presidents had failed to fix the nation's health care system, now concedes the effort may die in Congress.

The president's newly conflicting signals could frustrate Democratic lawmakers who are hungry for guidance from the White House as they try to salvage the effort to extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans and hold down spiraling medical costs. Obama's comments Thursday night came hours after Republican Scott Brown was sworn in to replace the late Edward M. Kennedy, leaving Democrats without their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and Obama's signature health legislation with no clear path forward.

"I think it's very important for us to have a methodical, open process over the next several weeks, and then let's go ahead and make a decision," Obama said at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser.

Why hasn't there been a methodical, open process for the last year?

"And it may be that ... if Congress decides we're not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not," the president said. "And that's how democracy works. There will be elections coming up, and they'll be able to make a determination and register their concerns."

It was a shift in tone for the issue the "Yes we can" candidate campaigned on and made the centerpiece of his domestic agenda last year.

COMMENT:  More than a shift in tone.  It's practically a surrender.  What this administration never learned is that the voice of the president, no matter how smooth, is not enough.  FDR was defeated on legislation, and he was an even better communicator than The One.  Moving a bill through Congress is a fine political art.  This crowd never mastered it.

It might have been wiser to pick a few reforms that have wide popular appeal, end the outrageous anti-trust exemption for the insurance industry, and proceed from there.  The American people wanted the car repaired.  They didn't volunteer to buy a new limo.

February 5, 2010   Permalink

HMM...INTRIGUING POLITICAL IDEA – AT 3:45 P.M. ET:  It's all speculation, but there's a certain fascination about this, from Ken Walsh of U.S. News, as he examines the potential Obama strategy for 2012:

Democratic strategists say that if President Obama's re-election prospects look shaky, he could dump Vice President Joe Biden from the 2012 national ticket and choose Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate.

It's inside-Washington speculation at this point, but the strategists make a good case for such a shift. "Biden was named in the first place to shore up Obama on foreign policy issues, and Obama doesn't need that anymore," says a former Clinton adviser. That's because Obama has learned the ropes and has assembled a strong foreign policy and national security team including Robert Gates as defense secretary, Jim Jones as White House national security adviser, and Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.

Uh, yeah, but if I may interject something:  That foreign policy team hasn't produced one solid success, so bear that in mind as you read this.  As for Obama learning the ropes – he's been bouncing off them rather than learning them.  He's got a good part of the world laughing at him and his impotence.

Elevating Clinton to the vice presidential slot would accomplish several objectives: It would appeal to female voters and the still-powerful cadre of Clinton admirers, give Obama more of a pragmatic luster, and shunt the gaffe-prone Biden aside. And it would theoretically discourage Clinton, a former senator from New York, from challenging Obama in the 2012 primaries, Democratic insiders say, because as vice president she would be considered Obama's heir for 2016. Clinton would be 69 that year, the same age as Ronald Reagan when he won the presidency in 1980.

True, but Dems will have been in power for eight years, and she'd be a very old face, in the national spotlight for 24 years. 

An even more intriguing thought is that Obama may not run for a second term.  It's hard to imagine an ego like that pulling out of the race, but Lyndon Johnson's ego was also enormous, and he declined to run again in 1968. 

Everything depends, of course, on the condition of the country as we approach 2012.  If the economy is still in trouble, or in worse trouble, or if we're in a bad jam internationally, the Dem nomination may not be worth much.  If she can avoid blame, which means no major foreign-policy disasters, Hillary could fill the vacuum, cruise to the nomination if Obama takes a hike, and hope for the best in the general.

Just fun talk.  Let's get through 2010 first.

February 5, 2010   Permalink

NOW THE DUTCH WONDER ABOUT "GLOBAL WARMING" SCIENCE – AT 10:24 A.M. ET:  No doubt the global-warming industry is hoping for a respite from the relentless series of scandals that have rocked their world, reported meticulously in The Times of London.

They'll have to wait longer.  Now the Netherlands is getting into the act, as AFP reports:

The Netherlands has asked the UN climate change panel to explain an inaccurate claim in a landmark 2007 report that more than half the country was below sea level, the Dutch government said Friday.

According to the Dutch authorities, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be asked to account for its figures, environment ministry spokesman Trimo Vallaart told AFP.

The incident could cause further embarrassment for the IPCC, which recently admitted a claim in the same report that global warming could melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was wrong.

IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level -- 26 percent -- to the area threatened by river flooding -- 29 percent -- Vallaart said.

"They should have been clearer," Vallaart said, adding that the Dutch office for environmental planning, an IPCC partner, had exact figures.

Correcting the error had been "on the agenda several times" but had never actually happened, Vallaart said.

The agenda?  The agenda?  That's what it's really about, isn't it?  They have an agenda, and those people who don't toe the party line aren't part of it.

The spokesman said he regretted the fact that proper procedure was not followed and said it should not be left to politicians to check the IPCC's numbers.

Yet, it's politicians, a few brave scientists, and some equally brave journalists who have raised the most significant questions about "global warming."

COMMENT:  With all that has been coming out, there is still not a single concession from the Obama administration that anything is wrong.  Global warming is the trendy cool thing, and remains so.  Most of the questions are now being asked in Britain and Europe, and by Fox News.  Others are invited to join.

February 5, 2010   Permalink

LESS BOUNCE FOR THE OUNCE – AT 9:57 A.M. ET:  We've been reporting here that President Obama received a polling bounce after his State of the Union message.  That bounce is now starting to fade away, as Rasmussen reports this morning.  Numbers are starting to return to their pre-speech levels:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove which Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12. The President received a modest bounce in his ratings following the State-of-the-Union Address, but today’s results suggest that the bounce is fading.

This proves that God is indeed taking care of the United States.

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.

That's pretty much where we were in overall approval before the speech.

This year, of course, the key polling will take place in individual states and Congressional districts.  It's much too early to be definitive – the election is nine months away – but so far the numbers seem to be heading in our direction, if not overwhelmingly so.

February 5, 2010   Permalink

BARACK, WE HARDLY KNEW YE – AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  President Obama, having been launched to power by his party's left wing, now learns how unforgiving that crowd can be.  And the moderates aren't too friendly either.  From The Politico:

President Barack Obama is running into resistance from congressional Democrats over several key economic proposals — blunting the party’s ability to send a clear message to middle-class voters that Democrats feel their pain.

Obama has run into friction from fellow Democrats over plans to freeze some federal spending, to use bailout funds for small-business lending and to limit the reach of big banks.

And Obama’s call for a jobs bill left Senate leaders pledging a vote as early as Monday — but offering no details of what a measure might include or how much it would cost.

All of this paints a picture of a governing party that faces uncertainty about the way forward on the economy, especially in the wake of a shattering defeat in the Massachusetts Senate race last month.

When the voters catch on to what you're doing, there is definitely uncertainty on the way forward.

The moderate Dems are panicking because many are up for reelection this fall, and the climate, despite global warming, has turned chilly.  And the leftist Dems, for whom bankrupting the country is collateral damage, see their dream of a new Utopia slipping away.

It's an unhappy party.  And we all know whose fault it is.  It's Bush's fault.

February 5, 2010   Permalink

NOW THE SPIN BEGINS – AT 8:42 A.M. ET:  The unemployment rate has dropped to 9.7%, which the Obama administration will use to tell us that things are improving.

But the devil, as usual, is in the details, which aren't so delightful.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Employers unexpectedly cut 20,000 jobs in January, but the unemployment rate surprisingly fell to a five-month low of 9.7 percent, according to a government report on Friday that hinted at some labor market improvement starting to take root.

The Labor Department said the economy shed 150,000 jobs in December, compared to 85,000 previously reported, but November was revised to a gain of 64,000, up from 4,000. Annual benchmark revisions to payrolls data showed the economy has purged 8.4 million jobs since the start of the recession in December 2007.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast payrolls gaining 5,000 and the unemployment rate to edge up to 10.1 percent in January from 10 percent. Median estimates from the top 20 forecasters expected payrolls to be unchanged last month.

A sharp increase in the number of people giving up looking for work helped to depress the jobless rate. The number of 'discouraged job seekers' rose to 1.1 million in January from 734,000 a year ago.

COMMENT:  So, the decline in the jobless rate isn't due to new employment, but to people just giving up.  We have a new army of the chronically unemployed.  Also, some of the new jobs come from the federal government, hiring thousands of workers to conduct the 2010 census. 

Not out of the soup by any means.

February 5, 2010   Permalink

THE SUPREME VERBAL GAFFE – AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  I wanted to comment on Mr. Obama's latest verbal gaffe, now making the rounds on TV and across the internet. 

If you haven't seen or heard it, it's here.

The president, in remarks about Haiti read from his brotherly teleprompter, makes three references to a Navy corpsman.  Incredibly, he pronounces it "corpse-man."

Is there anyone in America who doesn't know that the proper pronunciation is "core-man," and that the mission of the corpsman is to save lives? 

Now, several notes:  If this had been George W. Bush or Sarah Palin making the error, the mainstream media would have gone completely bananas (and I apologize to any yellow-skinned fruit that may be offended.)  Ignorant!  Moron!  Poor education!  But it's Obama, so it just passes by.

More important:  What does the gaffe tell you about the president's experience, the kinds of things he's read all his life, the kinds of films and documentaries he's seen, the people with whom he's spent time? 

To the pseudo-intellectual, it doesn't matter.  So he doesn't know how to pronounce a Navy term?  It's far more important that he understand and appreciate – let's see if I get this right – the multicultural, class, gender and racial issues involved in social conflict.  But I'm not so sure he's got much of a handle on that stuff either.

The fact is that the president, for all his eloquence, is a very narrow man, not well read and certainly not well experienced.  We went with an amateur, and an amateur is what we have.  He's going through on-the-job training, and, because of the generosity of the United States Government Corporation, receives full salary and benefits, along with public housing and transportation. 

Maybe some of the training will stick.  America's personnel managers, at the polls, will decide.  Among them will be a number of active and retired corpsmen.

February 5,  2010   Permalink