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.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

THURSDAY,  JULY 22,  2010

A GOOD CLARIFICATION – AT 7:43 P.M. ET:  The left is on a tear, trying to find ways to accuse all opponents of racism, or bigotry, or some such sin.  It's backfiring, but will continue.  As we've pointed out, it's part of a campaign to rouse the Democratic base and get it voting on election day.

Earlier this week Sarah Palin posted a comment on Facebook opposing the building of a mosque at Ground Zero in New York.  The post suddenly disappeared, and some on the left rejoiced, speculating that Facebook had removed a bigoted comment.  Not so, Facebook says, in a decent apology:

Facebook issued an apology Thursday for deleting a post by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes explained in a statement that a Palin post criticizing the building of a mosque near ground zero in New York City was removed by an automated system and had nothing to do with the content of the post.

Palin’s post calling the building of the mosque an “intolerable mistake” received widespread criticism in left-leaning circles, prompting some bloggers Thursday to speculate that either Palin or Facebook had removed the post to quell the controversy.

But Noyes said no such thinking was behind the removal of the post.

“The note in question did not violate our content standards but was removed by an automated system,” Noyes said. “We're always working to improve our processes, and we apologize for any inconvenience this caused.”

Okay, good for them.  The issue of the mosque is being positioned in leftist circles as a test of our "tolerance" and our respect for the First Amendment.  It is neither.  There is a First Amendment right to worship, but no First Amendment right to build a house of worship on any particular site.  Churches, synagogues and mosques must meet the same local building standards as any other structure.  Indeed, refusals often occur because of traffic problems.

As for tolerance, Sarah's wonderful comment, "It tears at the heart," says it better than all the other critics combined.  There's a time for decency, for respect.  Placing a mosque at Ground Zero is somewhat like placing a Japanese Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor.  Those placing the shrine might have the best of intentions, but putting it there is insensitive.  And, by the way, there is no Japanese Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor.

I've written before that if the sponsors of the mosque were pure of heart, and had a history of moderation and interfaith dialogue, there might be a reason to approve.  But the sponsorship is vague, at best, and the sponsoring imam has said some awful things.  Sorry, we don't have to ignore comments.

And there's something else.  We recognize that most of the world's Muslims don't engage in terrorism, and, presumably, don't approve of it.  But Islam will gain respect by giving some.  How about the Saudis permitting the building of a church or synagogue in Saudi Arabia?  How about teaching that Christianity and Judaism are sister religions of Islam, not inferior religions?  When those things are done, maybe we'd feel a bit differently about the mosque at Ground Zero.

In the meantime, Sarah speaks for many of us on this, and I'm glad to see Facebook's apology.  I reported earlier today that Sarah Palin is being taken more and more seriously by those with the power to see.  Maybe this is one more example.

July 22, 2010     Permalink

AGAIN? – AT 7:32 P.M. ET:  We know that our readers like to be kept informed about the latest trends in vacations.  Consider this, for your future plans of course:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is taking his own advice and taking his family to the Gulf Coast on vacation next month, something he and first lady Michelle Obama have been urging others to do to help the area's suffering economy.

Wait, wait, wait.  Didn't the supreme leader just come back from a vacation in Maine?  And then there was the vacation in...?  Okay, there's no contract that spells out the presidential vacation allowance, but this president has absolutely abused the vacation privilege.  A presidential vacation isn't just a week off here and there, with a burning of frequent-flier miles.  It involves vast public expense, Air Force One, and stuff like that.  Doesn't Obama like the job?

The White House said the Obamas will visit an undisclosed section of Florida's coast the weekend of Aug. 14.

Obama has made four trips to the Gulf region, including an overnight stay, since an underwater well failed in April and began spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico. First lady Michelle Obama was scheduled to make her second visit the area on Friday.

On their trips to the region, both the president and Mrs. Obama have made a point of encouraging people to visit Gulf Coast beaches that are open and oil-free to help boost an area economy battered by the sharp decline in tourism that followed the spill.

"One of the best ways that fellow Americans can help is to come on down here and spend some money," Mrs. Obama said this month in Panama City Beach, Fla., where she strolled barefoot in the sand and bought a cup of chocolate ice cream.

Uh, the Maine vacation was unnecessary.  Shoulda gone to the Gulf Coast, and stayed awhile.

But thanks for the ice cream purchase.  The tax on that will go a long way toward eroding that multi-trillion-dollar debt.

July 22, 2010     Permalink

AH, THE PASSAGE OF TIME – AT 9:37 A.M. ET:  There's a new survey out showing the relative popularity of the current president, compared to his immediate predecessors.  It shows Clinton more popular than Obama.  But that, in my view, isn't the real news here:

Former President Clinton is more popular than either of his successors, according to a new Gallup poll.

The poll found that 61 percent of voters have a favorable view of Clinton, compared to 52 percent who have a favorable view of President Obama and 45 percent for former President George W. Bush.

Not a shock.  Clinton doesn't have to deal with the problems of the world.  A consummate con artist, he still has the knack of speaking to people and making them believe him.  Even Monica believed him. 

It's the first time Clinton's favorable rating tops Obama's in Gallup's polling.

Democrats gave Clinton and Obama similar favorable ratings, but Clinton is more popular than Obama among independents and Republicans. A full 60 percent of independents have a favorable view of Clinton, and 30 percent of Republicans view him favorably.

But that's not the story, that's not it.  The real news here is that George W. Bush (!!!), the most reviled president in recent memory, the man portrayed by the mainstream media as a bumbling idiot who could barely read or write, is only seven points behind Obama. 

Time passes.  People reassess.  They're contrasting Bush with Obama.  Are we seeing a Truman effect here?  When Harry S. Truman left office, his approval ratings were in the twenties.  His opponents liked to quip, "To err is Truman."  Now he's seen as one of the greats.

I'm not sure Bush will reach that exalted level, but I sure felt safer with him in the White House than our current choice.

July 22, 2010      Permalink

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY STATES GO BROKE? – AT 9:04 A.M. ET:  Reader James Croak alerts us to this little gem, which explains what has been going on in some locales when voters weren't paying attention:

Hundreds of residents of one of the poorest municipalities in Los Angeles County shouted in protest last night as tensions rose over a report that the city’s manager earns an annual salary of almost $800,000.

An overflow crowd packed a City Council meeting in Bell, a mostly Hispanic city of 38,000 about 10 miles (16 kilometers) southeast of Los Angeles, to call for the resignation of Mayor Oscar Hernandez and other city officials. Residents left standing outside the chamber banged on the doors and shouted “fuera,” or “get out” in Spanish.

It was the first council meeting since the Los Angeles Times reported July 15 that Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo earns $787,637 -- with annual 12 percent raises -- and that Bell pays its police chief $457,000, more than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck makes in a city of 3.8 million people. Bell council members earn almost $100,000 for part-time work.

I ask a simple question:  Where has the local press been?  Did it ignore the story because the community is Hispanic?  I'm not making that charge, but I think it needs to be explored.

City Attorney Edward Lee said the council members couldn’t discuss salaries in public without advance notice. The council then adjourned for a private session. About an hour later, the council members returned, and Hernandez read a statement saying the city would prepare a report on the salaries and seek public comment at the next council meeting, scheduled for Aug. 16.

Residents shouted in protest. Lee said he would have the room cleared if people continued to speak out of line. Police Chief Randy Adams said the fire department wanted to end the meeting because the crowd outside was blocking the door.

Apparently Randy Adams is the guy who "earns" $457,000.  At that price he should be blocking the door himself, and giving out free dinners.

How do outrages like this occur?  They occur because people don't know about them, or can't take the time to care.  They apparently occur all over California, a once golden state that now has a severely tarnished image.  In one community the pension for a retired fire chief is a quarter of a million a year.

California used to be known for its educational system, its aircraft industry, and Hollywood.  Today its educational system is a shambles, its universities are crypts for old leftists.  Its aircraft industry is a shadow, frowned upon by the self-appointed intellectual classes.  And Hollywood?  Does anyone remember Hollywood?

July 22, 2010     Permalink

SARAH FOR PRESIDENT? – AT 8:38 A.M. ET:  Do you sense a rumbling in the Republican Party?  Do you hear people saying privately, "Let's face it, she's the only star we've got"? 

I'm starting to hear that.  I'm also noticing that Sarah Palin is being taken more seriously all the time.

Roger Simon, in The Politico, has written the best piece on Sarah Palin that I've ever read.  He actually approaches her in a mature manner:

More than 13 months ago, I wrote a column that began: “Sarah Palin can be the Republican nominee in 2012. I am not saying she will be, but she can be. Those who underestimate her do so at their own risk.”

It was not the most popular column I ever wrote. I remember snickering and mockery from those who could not find actual vegetables to throw...

...Now, more than a year later, I have not changed my mind about Palin’s political potential. This is not based on the polls — especially a recent one showing her in a 46 percent to 46 percent tie with Obama in a hypothetical 2012 face-off. I don’t believe such polls tell us anything meaningful.

I am basing my belief now, as back then, on Palin’s ability to connect with the base of her party. Name a bigger name in the Republican Party today. Heck, name any name in the Republican Party today.

Yeah, yeah.  The guy is on to something.

Today, Palin is going around the country endorsing and making speeches for Republican candidates with some success. Tuesday night in Georgia, former Secretary of State Karen Handel, who was endorsed by Palin, got 34 percent of the vote, while former U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, endorsed by Newt Gingrich, got 23 percent of the vote...

...Whatever Palin has been doing...seems to be working. And I have noticed a certain change in how the media are viewing her. In a recent column giving advice to journalists, Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic wrote: “Be humble about conclusions. ... Sarah Palin may not be ready to be president today, but that doesn’t mean she won’t be ready to be president tomorrow.”

Correct.  Remember a guy named Reagan?  He was laughed at for years before he became president, and much of the laughter came from within the Republican Party.

In even better news for Palin, her political opponents continue to dismiss her. Mark Halperin wrote in Time magazine recently: “An adviser to Mitt Romney ... says of Palin, ‘She’s not a serious human being.’”

Which leads me to believe that Romney needs to get himself some new advisers. Or at least he ought to remind them of the words of the Chinese philosopher Lao Tse, who wrote: “No disaster is greater than underestimating the enemy.”

Besides, does the most serious human being always win? Did Al Gore? Did John Kerry?

No, but Gore was distracted by his interest in massages.

Sarah Palin has something more than intellect. She has the ability to understand, connect with and energize her party.

And considering her likely opposition — Romney, Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee or Haley Barbour — tell me she has no chance. Go ahead and tell me. It’s enough to make one snicker.

COMMENT:  Hey, you think?

July 22, 2010       Permalink

HEY, MAYBE WE CAN'T, MAN – AT 8:12 A.M. ET:   We wrote here a few days ago that the Obamans are playing the race card and the Hispanic card, and that they might soon have to play the youth card in order to try to rebuild their sagging 2008 coalition. 

The Quinnipiac poll we reported yesterday indicates that they'd better start taking that card out of the deck.  The young are not following the leader, as the script requires.  From the New York Post:

WASHINGTON -- Young voters who had been enthralled by Barack Obama's "Yes, we can" message are now saying "Maybe not" -- and are backing away from the president in a worrisome new poll for the White House.

Obama is losing in a match-up against a generic Republican challenger by 37 percent to 34 percent among voters in the 18-34 age group, according to a stunning Quinnipiac University poll released yesterday.

In March, voters in this group approved of Obama by 54 percent to 37 percent.

"The youngest age group may be the most impatient and the most easily disillusioned among all age groups," said Molly Andolina, a youth-vote expert and DePaul University political-science professor.

For many young voters in 2008, "it was the first time they'd been really been involved, really paying attention. This is someone telling them, 'Yes, you can,' " she said.

Two years later, with a prolonged Gulf oil spill, "watching how slow it is to respond may be a little disillusioning," she added.

Obama won an astounding 66 percent of the vote among the under-30 crowd, according to exit polls tracked by the Pew Research Center, the biggest winning percentage for a candidate since Richard Nixon in 1972.

What?  Who?  Nixon?  Nixon got the youth vote?  Yeah, he did.  And in 1960, against Kennedy, he got the women's vote. 

The youth vote is fickle.  The young 'uns fell for Obama in 2008, giving me the feeling – I've had it often – that we should raise the voting age to 25, or maybe 45.  This country is adolescent enough without allowing the adolescents to have the ultimate weapon.

How would the Obamans play the youth card?  Easy.  Young people are vulnerable to certain scare tactics.  The Dems could say 1) if you vote Republican they'll take away your Social Security, and you'll just be paying in for other people; 2) if you vote Republican they'll change the terms of your student loans; 3) if you vote Republican they'll take away your unemployment insurance, and we know that many of you have lost jobs.  Then, there's the streetsweeping scare tactic:  If you vote Republican, they'll bring back the draft.  You know those warmongers.

Some of that stuff could work.  It's worked before.

July 22, 2010     Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  JULY 21,  2010

THE APOLOGY DERBY – AT 7:47 P.M. ET:  We can feel a legitimate sense of revulsion at the apology derby going on regarding Shirley Sherrod.  For those who've been on Mars the last few days, Shirley Sherrod is a Department of Agriculture officer who spoke before the NAACP and recounted her experiences with a white farmer.  At the start of the story, it appeared that she'd said and did racist things.  Later, the story turned out to be about racial reconciliation.

Initial reports of Sherrod's remarks stressed her seemingly anti-white comments.  She was ordered to resign by the Agriculture Department, apparently under pressure from a White House sensitive to charges of reverse racism.  The NAACP even denounced her.

When the full text of Sherrod's remarks surfaced, everyone went into damage-control mode, and the apologies started flowing.  Now the White House has apologized, and Sherrod will presumably be offered either her old job back, or a new one with Agriculture.

Garbage.

Yes, there was some early misinterpretation of her remarks, and the great Andrew Breitbart, who showed the edited video given to him, might have jumped the gun in publishing it.  But there are some facts here that need to come out:

1.  No matter what the intent of Sherrod's story, some of the language she used was inappropriate.  When she reported taking the white farmer to a lawyer "of his own kind,"
she was using language we just don't countenance today.  While that's probably not a cause for dismissal, it is a cause for reprimand.

2.  The NAACP says it was "snookered" by Fox News into denouncing Sherrod, but the record shows that the president of the organization was in attendance during her entire speech.  Presumably, he didn't think the "racial reconciliation" bit was all that important.

3.  Sherrod has made comments since her dismissal that are tasteless and require reprimand, like her comment to the ultra-liberal "Media Matters" that Fox News, which had carried the story, wants to see blacks returned to their original status in America, a blatant lie.

Once again we see the double standard at work.  Sherrod is African-American.  She may well have been wronged by an initial interpretation of her remarks.  But now the apologies flow.

Where, though, are the apologies to the tea partiers, who were accused of racism by that same NAACP just last week?  Where is the apology from Congressman Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, who accused the tea partiers of taking off the white sheets and putting on the tea party hats?  Where is the apology from media types and racial agitators who accused tea party members of shouting racial epithets at black members of Congress, when tapes of the incident in question show no such thing?

Where are those apologies?

The Rev. Jesse Jackson naturally weighed in, demanding an "apology" for Ms. Sherrod.  But it was Rev. Jackson who rushed down to Durham, North Carolina, to pour fuel on the fire when three white lacrosse players from Duke University were wrongly accused of raping an African-American exotic dancer.  When the truth came out, there was no apology from Rev. Jackson.

If Ms. Sherrod was wronged, she deserves to be made whole.  But our friends on the left might reflect on the racial politics now being played in order to energize the Democratic base.  And they might learn that apologies must sometimes be made by their self-righteous crowd, which tosses out terms like "racism" and "fascist" a little too freely.

July 21, 2010       Permalink

THE CONFIRMING POLL – AT 7:22 P.M. ET:  A recent poll, ironically by a polling organization that tilts Democratic, reported that President Obama would lose the 2012 election (if held today) against any Republican.  Now the respected Quinnipiac poll confirms the findings, and extends them:

President Obama's standing with American voters is so low that the latest Quinnipiac University poll indicates Obama would lose an election to "an unnamed Republican" -- meaning any GOP opponent -- by 39 to 36 percent.

The poll shows Obama's job approval hitting a new low, 44 percent approval to 48 percent disapproval. That is the president's worst net score ever, according to Quinnipiac.

The most drastic news for the president politically: His approval with the critical independent voters is dismal.

By a stunning 52 percent to 38 percent, independent voters disapprove of Obama. And by 37 to 27 percent, independents say they would vote for a Republican contender in 2012.

Overall, by a 48 percent to 40 percent margin, American voters say that President Obama does not deserve to be reelected in 2012.

While the Obama administration has time to turn around its low approval ratings before its next election, the poll is likely to sound alarm bells on Capitol Hill where many members of Congress will be up for reelection in November. Midterm elections tend to be a referendum on the party in power.

Voters apparently have a "pox on both their houses" mentality when it comes to Congress, giving both Republican and Democratic members very low marks. But that may be little consolation to Democrats on the ballot in November, because respondents said by a 43 to 38 percent margin that they would vote for a generic Republican over a generic Democrat for Congress.

COMMENT:  If Republicans, as we begin the main election campaign after Labor Day, can come up with a public program, a new Contract with America, it could ignite discontented voters even further and create the conditions for a historic transfer of power.

And I hope the GOP concentrates more attention on the Senate.  Recent statements by some Republican senators suggest that they have given up on recapturing the Senate, and would be content with getting close.  Well, there's no prize for close.  We need a majority to block reckless Supreme Court nominees.  Elena Kagan, a fine woman but a troublesome nominee, is about to put on the robes, and all because the GOP doesn't have the power to stop her.  Yes, we want to take back the House.  But the Senate is even more critical.

July 21, 2010      Permalink

TALKATIVE, ISN'T SHE? – AT 9:05 A.M. ET:  Speaking of cultural elites (see post just below), no one is more in that category than Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and now professor of something called American social thought and history at the very Ivy League University of Pennsylvania. 

Berry has a record of certified wackiness, but this quote will undoubtedly endear her to her fellows in the faculty lounge.  From The Politico:

Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.

COMMENT:  Oh my, oh my.  Will any liberal newspaper condemn such a statement? 

Please notice the way in which the race card has been pulled from the deck recently, and used.  The most prominent example was the NAACP's description of tea partiers as racists.  The objective, apparently, is to energize and scare the base.

And, of course, we have the administration's assault on Arizona, designed to attract the Hispanic vote.  (I wonder how many Hispanic-Americans will buy the argument.) 

Some of the main elements of the Obama coalition in 2008 were blacks, Hispanics, and the young.  Well, the strategy for appealing to blacks and Hispanics has become clear, but what about the young?  I suspect the Dems will tell young voters that, under Republicans, they'll have to grow up.  That might produce a Democratic landslide.

July 21, 2010      Permalink

HANSON NAILS IT – AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  The invaluable Victor Davis Hanson turns his attention to defining a cultural elite.  I think he makes some excellent points in a must-read article, for the cultural elites are running the show, and don't think very much of we mere mortals. 

But just who are these people?  I've defined them here as individuals who'd put their College Board scores on their gravestones.  I think that's a good place to start.  Hanson:

So what is a cultural elite?

It is a sloppy term that might include the academic class in the university that educates our children in college. The upper echelons that run government departments constitute part of this cultural elite. So does an entertainment cadre that oversees television and Hollywood. Corporate managers are elites as well.

There is no racial, regional, religious, or tribal commonality. One shared allegiance perhaps is to higher education that certifies the cultural elite by diplomas of all sorts from a “good school,” as well as a respectable salary and a nice home with appurtenances. The good life of the elite is defined by both the absence of worry about necessities, and a certain status that accrues from properly recognized advanced education and sensitivity.

Well said.  Hanson then goes on to list the characteristics of the American cultural elite:

1) Untruth. One requisite to being a cultural elite, unfortunately, is a certain allegiance to untruth, to saying one thing and doing another. Consider the manifestations of falsity from ecology to race. Often exempt from worry over a weekly check, and distanced from the mechanics of how things work, the elite clamors for a green cap-and-trade revolution. It rejects compromise with a fossil fuel near future that would transition us in a half-century or so to renewable energy.

That said, it is hard to find cultural elites who live green lives. Most use their money at times to fly on jets or boat (like the president this weekend). As in the manner of the tastes of a John Edwards or Al Gore, the bigger and more impressive the home, the better to contemplate how lesser others use too much carbon-based power....

2)  Nature. The cultural elite class tends to romanticize nature, since it has little contact with it. Energy Secretary Steven Chu cheaply announces that California farms will dry up and blow away, with no clue how the tomatoes in his salad or the lamb chops on his plate are grown, cleaned, shipped — and land in his mouth...

3) Muscularity. An elite is often characterized as staying fit entirely by the workout, the gym, the jog — never by chain sawing, digging, climbing, or hammering. Yet here too arises contradiction. The elite, being largely progressive, champion the muscular classes to the degree they can stay distant from them. Having good abs by crunching is far different from having big arms by using a five-foot long pneumatic drill...

4) Gender. Here I am worried, as I have expressed previously, about the marked differences in the way our cultural elite express themselves. Hollywood offers an instructive example. Why can’t any of our actors talk like a Humphrey Bogart, Glenn Ford, Lee Marvin, Henry Fonda, James Stewart, Bill Holden, or Gregory Peck? I’m not asking for Jack Palance or Fess Parker, just a normal male mainstream voice. I know there are Al Pacinos and Robert De Niros, but they too seem to fade before the new wave of DiCaprios. Elites talk (and probably sound) like the freedmen in Petronius’s Satyricon.

Today’s male’s voice is often far more feminine than that of 50 years ago.

Here I must comment.  I was around show business when the "changes" of the sixties and early seventies, and, boy, is Hanson right.  We went from John Wayne, whose skin really did resemble leather, to Dustin Hoffman and the cult of the boy-actor.  Need we mention Woody Allen.   

I mean, think Gary Cooper.  Then think Leonardo DiCaprio.  The women among our readership will understand.

5) Logic. There is little logic among the cultural elite, maybe because there is little omnipresent fear of job losses or the absence of money, and so arises a rather comfortable margin to indulge in nonsense.

Say it, brother, say it. 

This ad hoc meditation on cultural elitism was all prompted last week by listening to a poor white tree-trimmer lecture me on the various merits of his three different chain saws, while I was talking on the cell phone with a nasal-voiced, snotty Washington reporter — out here south of Fresno — but, in minutes, to be on the way to work at the antipode at Stanford.

Weirdly antithetical two worlds these that we have created.

Read the whole thing.  It's worth it.

July 21, 2010      Permalink

NOTHING TO SEE, FOLKS, NOTHING TO SEE – AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  One of the frustrations in dealing with failed terrorist attacks against the United States is that they're quickly forgotten, and we never quite understand the horror that could have occurred.

Consider the Times Square attempted bombing.  Apparently, had it come off, it could have been a major disaster.  From Fox:

Sources close to the investigation of failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad confirm to Fox News that the FBI tested a correctly constructed version of the explosive device.

Shahzad tried to detonate a car bomb in a Nissan Pathfinder on May 1, but the device fizzled and caused no injuries. But if the bomb had been detonated properly, it could have "killed in the thousands on the high end" and in the "hundreds on the low end," according to a source familiar with the investigation.

While the blast might have been more deadly than the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that claimed 169 lives, the force of the Times Square explosion would probably not have been as great. The impact of the explosion would have been felt both "upwards and outward," a source said.

A source close to law enforcement said "too many variables" make a precise damage estimate difficult to calculate adding that the bomb would "have caused a lot of damage." Although surrounding office buildings were mostly vacant on the Saturday evening of the planned attack, the high number of tourists on the street would have contributed to the number of causalities.

COMMENT:  It is inevitable that one of these terror operators will eventually get it right, just like Al Qaeda got 9-11 right.  And yet we seem so relaxed. 

I wonder, when the inevitable happens, whether the administration will give a name to the perpetrators, or just call them "misguided criminals."   I don't think we'll have to wait too long to find out.

July 21, 2010      Permalink

OBAMA'S DEFINITION OF GETTING TOUGH – AT 8:02 A.M. ET:  The United States is getting tough with North Korea.  The sound you hear is the North Koreans shivering in their boots.  Not really. 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — The Obama administration moved Wednesday to push new sanctions against North Korea over its nuclear weapons program, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates showed solidarity with South Korea during a visit to the area that separates it from the North.

Clinton announced the new measures — targeting the sale or purchase of arms and related goods used to fund the communist regime's nuclear activities, and the acquisition of luxury items to reward its elite — after she and Gates toured the heavily fortified border in a symbolic trip four months after the sinking of a South Korean warship blamed on the North.

The penalties are intended to further isolate the already hermetic North and persuade its leaders to return to talks aimed at getting it to abandon atomic weapons. The U.S. is also trying to forestall future provocative acts like the torpedoing of the Cheonan, which killed 46 South Korean sailors.

With specifics of the sanctions still being worked out, the more striking demonstration of U.S. resolve came when Clinton and Gates — in a first for America's top two cabinet members — together toured the demilitarized zone in the village of Panmunjom.

COMMENT:  Okay, but precisely what has been gained by sanctions on North Korea?  Nothing, really. Like Iran, the North Koreans shrug off sanctions and continue doing exactly what they were doing before.  The message we constantly send to the Northerners is that all they'll get when they misbehave is a slap on the wrist. 

The last major incident was the North's sinking of a South Korean warship.  The result?  A vaguely worded UN Security Council resolution that amounted to a dirty look.

The North may miscalculate and go too far next time, although "too far" seems to be a concept we're reluctant to define.

July 21,  2010     Permalink