SUNDAY,  JANUARY 10,  2010

OH DEAR, OH DEAR, HOW ARE WE GOING TO TELL AL? – AT 7:50 P.M. ET:  Just when the government told you to throw away that overcoat...  From London's Daily Mail:

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

It doesn't matter!  It doesn't matter!  You will never be invited to a good party if you go along with this right-wing, fascist BUSHIAN cooling stuff.

The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.

There is heresy being committed.  Heresy, I say.

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.

Everybody knows that the oceans are controlled by Exxon.

Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international political agenda since it was formed 22 years ago...

...Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.

'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.

‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’

COMMENT:  Al Gore has not commented.  But he's hired two armed guards to protect his Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth" against vandalism.

Get out the thermal underwear. 

January 10, 2010   Permalink

THE MOST IMPORTANT STORY IN HISTORY – AT 7:14 P.M. ET:  We wanted to make sure you knew this, so you can plan the rest of your life: 

“The Jay Leno Show” will exit prime time on Feb. 11, NBC confirmed on Sunday. But the network does not yet know what its future late-night lineup will look like.

Jeff Gaspin, the chairman of NBC Universal Television Entertainment, told reporters at a press event that conversations were continuing with Conan O’Brien, the host of “The Tonight Show,” about a proposal to push his program back half an hour to 12:05 a.m. The move would make room for a truncated version of “The Jay Leno Show” at 11:35 p.m.

Mr. Gaspin said conversations with Mr. Leno, Mr. O’Brien and the “Late Night” host Jimmy Fallon would resume on Monday. “My goal right now is to keep Jay, Conan and Jimmy as part of our late-night lineup. As much as I’d like to tell you we have a done deal, we know that’s not true,” Mr. Gaspin said, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

“Talks are still ongoing,” Mr. Gaspin added.

Ah, leave it to the current NBC management to mess up The Tonight Show.  Okay, I'm nostalgic, but, when I was working on that show, a bit of time ago, we didn't even know who the NBC management was.  The network had its president of the week, he'd visit, smile, and be gone. 

Ah Carson, where are you now that we need you?

You can be sure that NBC would give all just to hear one more "Heeere's Johnny!"

January 10, 2010   Permalink

WELL, AS WE WERE SAYING – AT 6:51 P.M. ET:  Our first item this morning reported a new Public Policy Polling survey showing GOP challenger Scott Brown a point ahead of Dem darling Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race, which will end in a special election a week from Tuesday.

Now, though, comes the party-pooping Boston Globe, owned by the much bigger party-pooping New York Times, with another poll showing a dramatically different result:

Democrat Martha Coakley, buoyed by her durable statewide popularity, enjoys a solid, 15-percentage-point lead over Republican rival Scott Brown as the race for US Senate enters the homestretch, according to a new Boston Globe poll of likely voters.

Half of voters surveyed said they would pick Coakley, the attorney general, if the election were held today, compared with 35 percent who would pick Brown. Nine percent were undecided, and a third candidate in the race, independent Joseph L. Kennedy, received 5 percent.

The Globe is one messenger I'd like to shoot.

I'm speculating here, but I'm guessing that both polls are wrong, and that the truth lies somewhere in-between.  Rasmussen recently had Coakley nine points ahead.  I'd imagine that's a bit closer to reality.  An examination of the methodology and dates shows that the poll showing a dead heat was taken a few days later than the Boston Globe survey, and had a larger sample than the Globe's. 

As we said this morning, a Brown victory is statistically unlikely in overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts.  But miracles can happen.  The election is still nine days away.

January 10, 2010   Permalink

HARRY REID IS IN TROUBLE, TRA-LA, TRA-LA – AT 12:04 P.M. ET:  Look, with that personality, Harry Reid is lucky to be considered alive.  But now, facing strong odds against reelection in Nevada this year, Reid is in further political trouble.  The Politico reports the damage:

Republican leaders called on Harry Reid to step down as Senate majority leader, Sunday, after the Nevada senator apologized for calling Barack Obama as a "light-skinned" African-American who lacked a "Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

"The reality of it is this, there is this standard where Democrats feel they can say these things and apologize as long as it comes from one of their own," Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele said on “Fox News Sunday,” equating Reid’s comments with the racially charged ones that led to the ouster of Former Republican Leader Trent Lott. "And if it comes from somebody else, it’s racism."

Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) , the second ranking Republican in Senate, also pointed to a "double standard" in how Democrats have treated Reid as compared to Lott.

It's about time somebody said this. 

"If he should resign, then Harry Reid should," Kyl said on Fox. "If they apologize and you know what is in their heart, my feeling is they shouldn't but in this case he should."

D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), though, warned Republicans Sunday against trying to make hay out of Harry Reid's comments.

“While Sen. Reid has been producing for African Americans, many of his critics were opposing him on these same issues,” Norton, a black woman who represents one of the most heavily African American cities in the country, said in a statement.

COMMENT:  The double standard is a disgrace.  Beyond Reid there is the case of Robert Byrd, the "revered" senator from West Virginia, once a member of the Ku Klux Klan, who has made racist comments periodically during his "distinguished" career in the Senate. 

The political rule is that only Republicans can be racists.  Democrats have "bad moments," or "express themselves awkwardly," or, well, you know the drill. 

And then there is he case of Bill Clinton, quoted in a new book about the 2008 campaign as saying to Ted Kennedy that Barack Obama would have been serving coffee to them not many years before.  The comment has not been confirmed by an independent source, but let's see how far the controversy goes. 

As far as Eleanor Holmes Norton is concerned, she's loyal only to herself.  She used to be a player in New York politics, moved to Washington, became the non-voting D.C. rep in Congress, and has melted away.

January 10, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER SURRENDER – AT 11:15 A.M. ET:  Little by little, we are giving up our freedoms to the trendies of political correctness, especially where Islam is concerned.  From the New York Post:

The Metropolitan Museum of Art quietly pulled images of the Prophet Mohammed from its Islamic collection and may not include them in a renovated exhibition area slated to open in 2011, The Post has learned.

The museum said the controversial images -- objected to by conservative Muslims who say their religion forbids images of their holy founder -- were "under review."

Critics say the Met has a history of dodging criticism and likely wants to escape the kind of outcry that Danish cartoons of Mohammed caused in 2006.

I know of no similar sensitivity that the Met, a museum with vast national influence, has ever shown toward Christianity or Judaism. 

Three years ago, the Met changed its "Primitive Art Galleries" to the "Arts of Africa, Oceania and the Americas" for the sake of political correctness, said author Michael Gross, author of "Rogues' Gallery," a book about the Met.

Just recently, it decided its highly anticipated "Islamic Galleries" will be given an awkward new name ahead of the 2011 opening. Visitors will stroll around rooms dedicated to art from "Arab Lands, Turkey, Iran, Central Asia and Later South Asia," according to a museum press release.

COMMENT:  It wasn't too many weeks back when Yale University decided to publish a book about the Danish cartoon controversy, without printing the cartoons.  The claim is always that institutions want to show "respect."  The reality is fear.  Or, just as bad, the reality is that there are large contributions involved.  Money talks, and Muslim groups, especially fronted by Saudi Arabia, use large amounts of it to buy influence in the United States and Western Europe.

January 10, 2010   Permalink

AND THERE'S MORE BAD NEWS  FOR THE DEMS – AT 10:51 A.M. ET:  We reported that the president came out of the New Year holiday with a small bump upward in the Rasmussen poll, but that he'd started to slide again.  The slide continues.

Rasmussen reports this morning that Obama's overall approval stands at 45%, whereas 54% disapprove, the president's worst numbers since December 24th.

In Ras's presidential approval index, measuring the gap between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove, the result is even more grim.  Only 25% strongly approve, but 43% strongly disapprove, a rating of -18, Mr. Obama's worst number since December 31st.

Clearly the administration's all-out attempt to portray itself as strong and capable in fighting terror has produced no gain.  What the president needs is a clear-cut victory in some area where the victory has strong appeal.  Passing an unpopular health "reform" bill won't cut it.

January 10, 2010   Permalink

THERE IS FEVER, THERE IS PAIN – AT 10:27 A.M. ET:  No, no, this can't be right.  Will the Kennedy family allow this?

But...it has been written.  Holy holy holy:

Don't look now, but Republican Scott Brown leads Democrat Martha Coakley by one point, 48 to 47 percent, in Public Policy Polling's new poll of the January 19 special Senate election in Massachusetts.

Brown is benefiting from depressed Democratic interest in the election and a huge lead among independents for his surprisingly strong standing. Those planning to vote in the special election only report having voted for Barack Obama in 2008 by a 16 point margin, in contrast to his actual 26 point victory in the state.

And those poll results are being reported elsewhere as well.  It is not a misprint.

The sound you hear is Massachusetts liberals quickly packing and rushing to ask for political asylum in Vermont. 

About a week ago the Rasmussen poll had Brown only nine behind.  He'd been 30 behind not long before that.

Is it possible?  Can a miracle occur a week from Tuesday?

Who knows?  There hasn't been a Republican elected to the Senate from Massachusetts in decades.  And this is the seat vacated by the death of Edward M. Kennedy.  It is the Ted Kennedy seat.

Massachusetts is a college state, and the academic "community" provides major voting support to the Democratic Party.  But, as reader Sam Indorante writes, the academic calendar may be working against the Dems this time:

Many of the traditional Dem lever pullers (academic elites and academic-elite wannabees, aka students) may be out of town for this election.

Colleges are on winter break.  Harvard doesn't return, as Sam points out, until January 25th.  Others probably return too late for the vote. 

The Dems are now alerted that Coakley is in trouble.  They'll turn on the heat.  Brown's election is still statistically unlikely, but he is surging.  Hope for the impossible.

January 10,  2010   Permalink

SATURDAY,  JANUARY 9,  2010

SOMETHING BIZARRE GOING ON – AT 7:17 P.M. ET:  Either the White House is, or is not, in a new feud with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, our Afghanistan commander.  This is a mystery.  Consider, from the Politico:

The New York Times reports that the White House is disappointed with the slow pace of the Afghan surge and wonders if top Pentagon officials misled them about how quickly they could surge forces to Afghanistan:

"Senior White House advisers are frustrated by what they say is the Pentagon’s slow pace in deploying 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and its inability to live up to an initial promise to have all of the forces in the country by next summer, senior administration officials said Friday.

"Tensions over the deployment schedule have been growing in recent weeks between senior White House officials — among them Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, and Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff — and top commanders, including Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the senior commander in Afghanistan."

Remember, in the fall, it was reported that the White House was displeased with McChrystal, its hand-picked choice, because he was publicly defending his request for more troops.  Conservatives criticized what they saw as the president's hectoring of its general.

The Politico updated its story:

UPDATE: Senior Defense Department spokesman Geoff Morrell writes, "There is no story here. As I told the Times, this is a totally contrived controversy fabricated by them and them alone.

Well, I must say....  That's an awfully serious charge against the leading in-the-tank-for-Obama paper in the United States.  We've accused The Times of many things here, but I doubt that it would totally manufacture a story like this.

There's something here.  I'm speculating, but I suspect that the faction that lost the Afghanistan "surge" debate is striking back.  This is a weak president, and he isn't inclined to stop these feuds, and obviously can't control them.  A story like this is a sign of an administration lacking internal discipline, a contrast with the very disciplined Obama political campaign.

January 9, 2010   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 6:52 P.M. ET:  From the great Mark Steyn:

The election of Barack Obama was a fundamentally unserious act by the U.S. electorate, and you can't blame the world's mischief-makers, from Putin to Ahmadinejad to the many Gitmo recidivists now running around Yemen, from drawing the correct conclusion.

For two weeks, the government of the United States has made itself a global laughingstock. Don't worry, "the system worked," said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Incompetano. Don't worry, he was an "isolated extremist," said the president. Don't worry, we're banning bathroom breaks for the last hour of the flight, said the TSA. Don't worry, "U.S. border security officials" told the Los Angeles Times, we knew he was on the plane, and we "had decided to question him when he landed." Don't worry, Obama's counterterrorism chief, John Brennan, assured the Sunday talk shows, sure, we read him his rights, and he's lawyered up but he'll soon see that "there is advantage to talking to us in terms of plea agreements."

Oh, that's grand. Try to kill hundreds of people in an act of war, and it's the starting point for a plea deal.

COMMENT:  While the administration moved mountains – well, molehills – to change its rhetoric toward the end of last week, I suspect that most Americans now know where the president's heart really is.  He is a leftist academic who really has no problem with a lax attitude toward terror, or man-made disasters, or whatever his latest term is.  And he has no problem with plea deals for mass murderers.  That's what he was taught in his radical upbringing, and in the chic, leftist precincts of Hyde Park, Chicago (where I used to live.)  It all fits...and it should have been explored before the 2008 election.

January 9, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER GREAT MOMENT IN JOURNALISM – AT 6:44 P.M. ET:  A headline from The New York Times:

Seeing Old Age as a Never-Ending Adventure

As Johnny Carson's "Aunt Blabby" used to say, "Don't say never-ending to an old person."

If old age turns out to be never-ending for anyone, that will be the most remarkable person to have ever lived.

Some headline writer's thinking cap wasn't on.

January 9,  2010   Permalink

JUST WHEN I THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE TO READ AN AP STORY – AT 1:14 P.M. ET:  Well, maybe it was too good to be true, reform at AP, I mean.  The news service has done some fine work in the last 48 hours, finally noticing that Al Qaeda is targeting the West and that Obama blames BUSH (!!) for almost everything.

But now AP disappoints once more.  This AP story has gone viral around the internet:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani set off a tempest about terrorism Friday with his claim that the United States "had no domestic attacks" under former US president George W. Bush.

Giuliani somehow neglected to mention the September 11, 2001, terror attacks in his own city as he contrasted US President Barack Obama's handling of terror cases with that of Bush in light of the failed Christmas Day attempt by a passenger to blow up a US-bound flight. The September 11 attacks toppled New York's World Trade Center, killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania and earned Giuliani accolades as "America's mayor."

The Republican said of Democrat Obama on ABC's "Good Morning America" that "what he should be doing is following the right things that Bush did."

While saying he believes Obama "turned the corner" on understanding the nature of terrorism when he publicly declared the United States at war, Giuliani added that Obama has plenty of room to improve on terror.

"We had no domestic attacks under Bush," Giuliani said. "We've had one under Obama."

COMMENT:  This is absurd.  Rudy was no doubt sloppy in his comments, but what he clearly meant was that under Bush we had no successful attacks on American soil after 9-11.  In other words, Bush zipped things up pretty tightly as he launched the war on terror. 

The AP went a little nuts on this.  Indeed, much later in the story, it takes it back:

When Giuliani was questioned later Friday about his statement, he explained to CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he misspoke.

"I usually say we had no domestic attacks, no major domestic attack under President Bush since September 11," he said. He said after all the warnings of more attacks that came immediately after September 11, many were surprised that this country avoided another major terror attack.

Giuliani said: "I did omit the words 'since September 11.' I apologize for that."

There is no story here, and yet it's all over the internet.

This is not good journalism.

January 9, 2010   Permalink

I'M SHOCKED, SHOCKED, TO FIND THERE'S NOTICING GOING ON – AT 11:56 A.M. ET:  What is happening at the AP?  Has there been a religious experience?  In 48 hours the Associated Press has noticed fully two major facts that we've been discussing for a very long time. 

First, as we breathlessly reported yesterday, the AP noticed that Al Qaeda is targeting the West.  And now, prayerfully, there's this:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- He says ''the buck stops with me,'' but nearly a year into office, President Barack Obama is still blaming a lot of the nation's troubles -- the economy, terrorism, health care -- on George W. Bush. 

Thanks, fellas.  Glad you figured it out.  Were there big staff meetings involved?

Over and over, Obama keeps reminding Americans of the mess he inherited and all he's doing to fix it. A sharper, give-me-some-credit tone has emerged in his language as he bemoans people's fleeting memory about what life was like way back in 2008, particularly on the economy.

It is, after all, what amateurs do.

While candid about what he called his team's ''screw-up'' in the botched Christmas airliner attack, Obama has made a point of underlining all the good he believes his government has done, too.

''Our progress has been unmistakable,'' Obama said as the new year began. ''We've disrupted terrorist financing, cutting off recruiting chains, inflicted major losses on al-Qaida's leadership, thwarted plots here in the United States and saved countless American lives.''

Yeah, and the Titanic made it more than halfway across. 

They sure thwarted that Fort Hood plot.  And, if I recall, the airline bomber was thwarted by other passengers.

On terrorism, Americans are less concerned about quiet successes than troubling failures, especially one that evoked harrowing memories of Sept. 11, 2001.

On the economy, people prefer good news now, not updates on how things are gradually getting less bad.

Yup.  If there's a Pulitzer for noticing, AP gets it.

"I think we have been successful in averting disaster,'' Obama said on Dec. 16 about righting the economy. ''You know, you don't get a lot of credit for that, because nobody knows how bad it could have been.''

"You know, President Roosevelt, the Japanese could have sunk even more battleships." 

Geez.

''The president himself, not surprisingly, may feel quite satisfied with accomplishments in his first year,'' said Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll. ''But we don't see signs that the American public is positive.''

I believe they call that the bottom line.

January 9,  2010   Permalink

THE FORGOTTEN STORY – AT 10:37 A.M. ET:  With all our focus on terror, we've pushed aside a story that is even larger, essentially the collapse of our Iran policy.  The New Year's deadline for Iran to show progress in negotiating its nuclear program has come and gone, with no punishment, and Washington is now talking of softer, "targeted" sanctions, rather than the "crippling sanctions" that were all the rage only a month ago.  Iran has noticed:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad expressed continued defiance to the threat of further sanctions on his country on Saturday, saying the Islamic Republic will not be deterred from pursuing its nuclear program.

"They issued several resolutions and sanctioned Iran," Ahmadinejad said in a speech translated by the AFP news agency. "They think Iranians will fall on their knees over these things but they are mistaken."

"We are not interested in conflicts [but they] are continually demanding things," he said. "They should not think they can put up obstacles in Iranians' way ... the government will whole-heartedly defend Iran's rights and will not back down one iota."

Iran even escalated its demands:

Meanwhile, in an announcement seemingly in line with his confrontational attitude towards Western nations, the hardline president has ordered the formation of a team to study the damages the country suffered from the 1941 Allied invasion in order to demand compensation.

Ahmadinejad said Iran suffered immensely after it was invaded by Britain and the Soviet Union during World War II despite its declared neutrality and was never compensated.

And...

Ahmadinejad also warned that Iran may also demand compensation for the damages it suffered during World War I, the Western support for the former Pahlavi Dynasty and its hostility towards Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

COMMENT:  We're being laughed at.  This is what Obama gets for his naive "outreach" policy.

January 9, 2010   Permalink

OBAMA'S STANDING – AT 10:09 A.M. ET:  President Obama came out of New Year's with a slight bump upward in the polls, but is now sliding back to the depressing – from his viewpoint – numbers that plagued him before the holiday, as Rasmussen reports:

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-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17.....

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

Rasmussen polls among likely voters.  Other polls, those taken among "all adults" or "registered voters," tend to show the president somewhat stronger. 

Rasmussen's results reflect polling done as the administration went on a major offensive to show that it's serious about terrorism.  The public was apparently not impressed. 

The "at least somewhat approve" number, 46%, approximately parallels John McCain's standing in the last presidential election.

January 9,  2010   Permalink