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.

TO OUR READERS:  Please click on Urgent Agenda several times during the day.  We hope, in 2011, depending on the news, to put up at least one post during the afternoon hours, so there'll always be something new to read.  So visit us regularly.

JANUARY 17,  2011

OH THANK YOU, MASTERS.  THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, FOR THROWING US A CRUMB – AT 8:01 P.M. ET:  What is it about "professional journalists," that they can't complete a forward pass.

Indeed, if some of these worthies were football players, they'd be reluctant to try a forward pass because its completition might offend the other team.

Mark Hemingway, in the Washington Examiner, has the latest example of spinelessness on parade by the keepers of the flame: 

I guess the Society for Professional Journalists finally decided that handing out awards named for a senile anti-Semite probably isn't the best P.R. move.

And then the grand statement from SPJ:

INDIANAPOLIS – The board of directors of the Society of Professional Journalists voted Friday to retire the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award.

The vote means the Society will not give out an award for lifetime achievement. The action does not rename the award or remove Thomas’ name.

Real guts.  Just eliminate the award completely rather than rename it for an outstanding journalist.  We must kowtow to Helen's fanatical fans.

Both the board of directors and the executive committee heard from many people inside and outside of SPJ’s membership and journalism. SPJ fully understands the concerns expressed by both sides regarding whether renaming or retiring the award is necessary or improper.

A prominent objection to taking any action was that of Helen Thomas’ free speech rights. SPJ staunchly believes Helen Thomas and all people in the United States have a right to free speech. The Society defends that fundamental legal right as a core organizational mission, even when the speech is unpopular, vile or considered offensive.

Oh please, oh please.  What, precisely, do Helen Thomas's free-speech rights have to do with naming an award for her?  Is there some Constitutional right to have an award named for you?  No, I didn't think so.

This is the garbage put out by the old left.  They claim that they not only have a right to free speech, they have a right not to be criticized.  You get this on college campuses all the time, which is possibly where these "professional journalists" learned it.

As Americans, we have a right to free speech, but not cost-free speech.  Say what you want, but your words have consequences, and people have a right, and a duty, to judge you by those words.  They have a right to withdraw any honors they may have given you.

This is a weak decision, designed apparently to satisfy both sides.  It satisfies neither.  It shows what modern journalism has become.

January 17, 2011      Permalink 

NAILED – AT 6:10 P.M. ET:  One of the great myths circulated by the painstream media is that internet bloggers aren't real journalists, and can't be.  I think that's been disproved several million times.

Today, at Power Line, Johnn Hinderaker practices fine online journalism by nailing the Associated Press, which has been hawking the idea, based on one of its polls, that opposition to Obamacare is weakening:

This Associated Press-GfK poll on health care has gotten a great deal of media attention. Here is how the AP characterizes its own findings:

"As lawmakers shaken by the shooting of a colleague return to the health care debate, an Associated Press-GfK poll finds raw feelings over President Barack Obama's overhaul have subsided."

It appears that what is mostly going on is that the AP-GfK sampled a heavily Democratic group of respondents this month. This is on top of the fact that the survey sampled all adults, not likely voters.

Oh.

Hinderaker publishes the poll details, proving his point.

Democrats and Democrat leaners outnumbered Republicans and Republican leaners by six points, whereas among likely voters in October, Republicans outnumbered Democrats by the same margin. It stands to reason that if you over-sample Democrats, you will get poll data more sympathetic to their policies.

Scott Rasmussen polls on the same subject, and his results, which Hinderaker includes, show continued high opposition to Obamacare. 

The principal difference between this Rasmussen survey and the AP-GfK poll is that Rasmussen surveys likely voters.

They're the people who actually make a difference at the polls.

It is reasonable to assume that Democrats in the press have deliberately promoted the AP-GfK poll in order to deter Republicans from voting for repeal and to encourage Democrats to stick with the administration. It will be interesting to see whether today's Rasmussen survey gets an equal amount of media attention.

COMMENT:  Republicans in Congress understand that any vote to overturn all of Obamacare is symbolic.  What the public wants is a better plan, not no plan.  Republicans must come up to the plate and provide that better plan.  We'll be watching and holding them to account. 

January 17, 2011       Permalink

THE WORDS FLOW – AT 5:44 P.M. ET:  It's Martin Luther King Jr. day, and the words are flowing.  Tragically, they're just words.  We'll be back to the same hypocrisy, the same racial pandering and corruption, tomorrow morning.  And minority kids will be the victims.

Consider this bit of pap:

(CNSNews.com) - In a Martin Luther King, Jr. Day address, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said education is “the civil rights issue of our generation” and the “only way” for young people to pursue the American dream.

“I’m just convinced education is the civil rights issue of our generation and we have a lot of hard work ahead of us. If we want our young people to have a chance to enter the mainstream of society and pursue the American dream, they can only do that through education,” he said at National Action Network’s Martin Luther King, Jr. day prayer breakfast, hosted by the group’s founder, Rev. Al Sharpton.

Duncan continued, “We all know the stats, we all know the numbers; I don’t have to go through those. But I just want to take a moment to talk about why I’m hopeful because for all the challenges we faced, we have the solutions here and the President has drawn a line in the sand. He said by 2020 we have to again lead the world in college graduates. We are not going to get there unless many more young people of color are part of the solution unless, until we’re giving them those kinds of opportunities there’s no way to hit the President’s goal.”

COMMENT:  This is just racial boilerplate, delivered at a meeting presided over by that great conciliator and philosopher, Al Sharpton.  After last week's outrage in Arizona, you'd think someone would have pointed out the fact that Sharpton, essentially a small-time local leader with a big ego, has one of the most inflammatory records of anyone on the political stage today.  But there was only silence.

I think Arne Duncan is a decent guy.  But the idea that children of color lack opportunities is nonsense.  The opportunities are there.  What's also there is an insidious culture that has been allowed to develop in black communities that discourages academic excellence.  Black kids can be as accomplished as anyone else, but they need a nurturing culture that treats them, not as victims or as political pawns, but as young citizens with responsibilities.

Duncan might send a message to some African-American "leaders" in a few places who are protesting school districts that are holding class on King Day to make up school time lost because of storms.  Duncan might say that Dr. King would have liked that.  Instead, the grandstanding continues.

And we're not going to improve education in this country unless we recognize and deal with certain truths – that our teacher-training schools are often hopeless centers of ideological propaganda, that teacher unions are far too powerful, that many school systems are top-heavy with political patronage and overpaid administrators, and that "the college education" is too often an oversold package of glorified high-school courses rather than a rigorous course.

Don't hold your breath.

January 17, 2011       Permalink

PRESIDENT PERRY? – AT 9:33 A.M. ET:  There is a boomlet underway for Governor Rick Perry of Texas, as reported by NRO:

To be clear, a Perry White House bid would be a long shot. In mid-November 2008, amid George W. Bush’s dismal approval ratings and Barack Obama’s historic campaign to take the White House, I wrote a column predicting that it would be many years before another Texas politician would be viable as a national candidate. I still think that’s true. But Perry has several things working in his favor. Foremost among them: He can win Texas. Recall that when Obama won in 2008, he was only the third person since Calvin Coolidge to win the White House without prevailing in Texas. The others were Bill Clinton (who, thanks largely to Ross Perot, did it twice) and Richard Nixon (who did it once, in 1968). Second, Perry can see the obvious: a large but weak list of potential Republican candidates, none of whom has emerged as a real favorite.

Perry is a hardline conservative, which is both a blessing and a curse.  It's a blessing because he could convince the party base.  It's a curse because any successful presidential candidate has to appeal to the political middle.

Perry is involved in a huge battle with the EPA, which wants to restrict Texas's right to approve new industrial and energy plants.  It's the kind of struggle that Republicans adore.  If Perry wins, and can solve the state's budget deficit without a tax increase, he may emerge as a serious contender.

But I think the general election would be an enormous hurdle, unless the economy really tanks.  In my view, what the GOP needs is a fresh, young face, a Marco Rubio or a Paul Ryan, or a Susanna Martinez, to negate the image of a party of good ol' boys.  And again, it must get votes from the middle, which is where elections are won. 

Where is Ronald Reagan, now that we need him again?

January 17, 2011       Permalink

RUDY SPEAKS OUT ON TUCSON – AT 9:12 A.M. ET:  No one knows more about crime fighting than Rudy Giuliani, the abrasive former mayor of New York, who actually did something about crime while he was mayor, and changed the face of the city.  Some say he saved it. 

Rudy is agitated over the fact that the Tucson shooter wasn't forced to get mental help, and Rudy is right.  From The Politico:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Sunday that the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) by a gunman many view as deranged should prompt more muscular efforts to force individuals with mental illness into treatment.

It's about time someone brought this up.

News accounts in recent days have described a series of bizarre statements by the accused gunman Jared Loughner and detailed how he repeatedly clashed with authorities, particularly at the community college he attended.

"This man was crying out for someone who needed to be treated. He was being told to be treated. People were saying he was bizarre. People were saying he was frightening. A teacher wouldn't be near him without a guard being there," Giuliani said on CBS's "Face The Nation." "Gosh, you would think, at some point along the way he would have been evaluated."

Yeah, but if you say that you can't blame Sarah Palin, which is what too many in the media want to do.

"The most relevant problem was the lack of an ability to deal with what was apparently paranoid schizophrenia or schizophrenia, that should have been treated," the former mayor said. "We're making a big mistake here not changing our procedures with regard to mental illness."

Giuliani suggested that the shooting incident in Tucson, which claimed the lives of six people, may have been the result of policies that date back to the 1960s that protect individual freedom and make it difficult to force mental-health treatment on those who need it.

Absolutely correct.  What happened in Arizona may well have been a direct result of the "mentally ill have rights" movement, an outgrowth of the "reforms" of the 1960s.  There was a major movement, backed by the "enlightened" segments of our society, to make it almost impossible to commit a mentally ill person without his or her consent.  I'm sure some of these cases worked out well enough.  But a number of seriously ill people were dumped on our streets, many became homeless, and some became dangerous.  Free of constant supervision, the mentally ill could easily go off their medication. 

There simply has to be a point when, with reasonable judiciousness, a person who is seen as a threat to himself or society can be confined without his consent.  When you look at the Arizona shooter's history, it is shocking:  Many encounters with the police or with campus security forces; bizarre, frightening behavior; chilling statements.  Yet, he was permitted to roam free, and could even buy a pistol because his history wasn't in the federal database.  If the law had allowed the material to be in that database, he would have been barred from buying the gun that he allegedly used a week ago Saturday.

January 17, 2011       Permalink

GUESS HU'S COMING TO DINNER – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  China's big guy is heading to Washington this week.

Americans tend to ignore the rise of China, while buying its products every day.  We haven't had a direct military confrontation with the Chinese since the Korean War, some 60 years ago.   And thus, the huge Chinese military buildup, while reported in the media, doesn't strike the average American with much impact.

But China is a complex mechanism, as The New York Times points out, with different power centers jockeying for influence:

Mr. Hu has repeatedly asserted China’s disinclination to challenge American power; his designated foreign policy coordinator, State Councilor Dai Bingguo, recently wrote an article reaffirming Mr. Deng’s warning, made back when China’s modernization was beginning, that the country should bide its time before seeking a global role.

On Friday, the article was cited by Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, who characterized it as “a definitive statement at this point of the leadership’s approach to foreign policy generally and the United States specifically.”

But even Mr. Donilon acknowledged debates “particularly in the blogosphere and in newspapers in China” that urge a far faster, more assertive rise, and that trumpet American decline. He said with some understatement that “following that debate is a very important thing to do.”

COMMENT:  My friend, China expert Gordon Chang, also warns that China may face substantial internal turmoil and chaos in coming years.  The country, with the world's largest population, has sections that are unhappy and largely ungovernable. 

We must, of course, watch the rise of China's economic and military power carefully, but let's not make the Chinese ten feet tall.  We won the Cold War against the Russians, and Japan isn't the economic monster it once seemed.  China will grow, but can easily stumble badly.

January 17, 2011       Permalink

A TALE OF TWO SPEECHES – AT 8:16 A.M. ET:  A warning:  You are going to have a lot of pseudo-history thrown at you this week.  Brace yourselves, cover your ears.

Today is the 50th anniversary of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation.  Thanks to the political left, it has become known as the "industrial-military complex" speech.  The left just loved the idea that this former five-star general was warning about a new military-industrial complex...conveniently ignoring the fact that Eisenhower, in the same speech, said that it was necessary.

There will be much pompous foolery – it's already begun – examining the wisdom of Dwight Eisenhower's warning by people who don't realize that the admonition turned out to be a false alarm.  Defense spending, as a proportion of our GNP, is dramatically lower today than in 1961, and we have only a tenth of the men and women under arms than we had in World War II.  We haven't had a draft in almost 40 years.

Thursday will mark the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's inaugural address, probably the most quoted inaugural since FDR's "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" first inaugural, delivered in 1933.  Pundits will compare Eisenhower, "the wise old man," with Kennedy, the young idealist.  I'm very curious to see how modern liberals will handle the Kennedy speech, which called, unabashedly, for a powerful military and for America spreading the democratic ideal. 

My suggestion is to ignore the commentary and read the speeches.  Then draw your own conclusions.

Eisenhower's speech is here.  Kennedy's is here.  Enjoy a bit of history by going directly to the sources.

January 17, 2011     Permalinks

JANUARY 16,  2011

WARNING ON IRAN – AT 9:46 P.M. ET:  As Gilda Radner used to say, it's always something.  Now the Russians are warning that Iran's damaged nuclear program can be dangerous.  From London's Telegraph:

Russian nuclear scientists are providing technical assistance to Iran's attempts activate the country's first nuclear power plant at the Gulf port.

But they have raised serious concerns about the extensive damage caused to the plant's computer systems by the mysterious Stuxnet virus, which was discovered last year and is widely believed to have been the result of a sophisticated joint US-Israeli cyber attack. According to Western intelligence reports, Russian scientists warned the Kremlin that they could be facing "another Chernobyl" if they were forced to comply with Iran's tight deadline to activate the complex this summer.

After decades of delays over the plant, which was first commissioned by the Shah in the 1970s, Iran's leaders are demanding that scientists stick to the schedule set last year. They argue that any delay would be a blow to Iran's international prestige.

COMMENT:  Then if something goes wrong, the Iranians can blame the U.S. and Israel, which is what they're culturally programmed to do anyway.

January 16, 2011     Permalink

SURPRISING RESULT – AT 11:17 A.M. ET:  We promised to report on whether President Obama's Tucson speech results in any improvement in his approval rating.  We said, based on yesterday's Rasmussen survey, that the improvement thus far was minimal.  Today, the president seems to slip back:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14.

That's two points worse than yesterday.

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.

Also two points worse than yesterday, and the worst presidential showing in the Rasmussen poll since mid-December.

We stress that a poll is a snapshot in time, and that Rasmussen is only one poll.  But so far we've seen no evidence that the president has gained mightily from the Tucson appearance.

January 16, 201      Permalink

A TALE OF GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE – AT 11:05 A.M. ET:  The House this week will decide whether to repeal, symbolically, Obamacare.  Repeal will never make it into law because of Dem control of the Senate and the president's veto pen, but House action will send a powerful message.

We certainly don't claim here that all government health care is bad.  There are some good programs in a number of countries, and credit should always be given where it's due.  But there are also too many horror stories that warn us about depending on one source for health care.  Consider this, from London's Telegraph:

It was a bitterly cold night in January when Geraldine Weller gave birth in the car park of a London hospital. Three hours earlier, the maternity unit had sent her away. Midwives who said they were short-staffed had confidently told her that it would be "ages yet" before she went into labour. They maintained that view even as her husband made frantic phone calls, reporting from their Surrey home that the baby's head could now be seen.
In desperation, the couple ignored advice to stay put and drove back to the hospital. With her husband shouting into the security cameras of the maternity unit for help, Mrs Weller stepped from the passenger seat. As she did so, she gave birth to their first child, catching the newborn in one leg of her pyjamas.

She says: "We just huddled together. My husband came back and wrapped Henry in a bath towel, and finally one of the nurses came out and said: 'What's this?' "

One year on, Mrs Weller (not her real name) has a healthy child and deeply traumatic memories of Britain's maternity services. She is not alone. Last month, a survey of 25,000 women who had children in England last winter found that more than one in five was left alone during childbirth at a point when it worried them.

Today, an investigation by The Sunday Telegraph discloses widespread fears among health professionals that maternity services are sliding into crisis, as small units close, and funding fails to keep up with a decade-long baby boom.

COMMENT:  A good health-care program, like any other service, should provide alternatives.  When there are no alternatives, stories like the one above are inevitable.

January 16, 201      Permalink

AS THE WORM TURNS – AT 10:25 A.M. ET:   We said here several weeks ago that the most underreported story of 2010 was the Stuxnet virus, a computer worm that did enormous damage to the Iranian nuclear program, and set it back several years.  Now, in a piece of revealing reporting, The New York Times pieces together how the United States and Israel produced the worm and used it, in a program initiated by the Bush administration.  We hope that President Bush gets the credit he deserves for this contribution:

The Dimona complex in the Negev desert is famous as the heavily guarded heart of Israel’s never-acknowledged nuclear arms program, where neat rows of factories make atomic fuel for the arsenal.

Over the past two years, according to intelligence and military experts familiar with its operations, Dimona has taken on a new, equally secret role — as a critical testing ground in a joint American and Israeli effort to undermine Iran’s efforts to make a bomb of its own.

Behind Dimona’s barbed wire, the experts say, Israel has spun nuclear centrifuges virtually identical to Iran’s at Natanz, where Iranian scientists are struggling to enrich uranium. They say Dimona tested the effectiveness of the Stuxnet computer worm, a destructive program that appears to have wiped out roughly a fifth of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges and helped delay, though not destroy, Tehran’s ability to make its first nuclear arms.

COMMENT:  This is a great detective story, and well worth reading.  It also shows what two allies, working together, can accomplish.  Compare please with our "alliance" with Pakistan or even some European countries.

January 16, 201      Permalink

SNEAKY, SNEAKY – AT 10:09 A.M. ET:  One of the less attractive characteristics of the Obama administration is the tendency to reward hostile foreign nations when they've done absolutely nothing to earn the reward.  Thus, an American ambassador now returns to Syria, even though Syria has done nothing to earn our respect.  And, during this last week of national mourning, President Obama eased travel restrictions on Cuba.  Cuban-American leaders are furious, as Fox News reports:

Republican lawmakers of Cuban descent sharply criticized President Obama's plans to loosen Cuban travel policy to allow students and church groups to go to the communist country, saying the changes will benefit the Castro regime while doing little for the average citizen.

"Loosening these regulations will not help foster a pro-democracy environment in Cuba," said U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "These changes will not aid in ushering in respect for human rights. And they certainly will not help the Cuban people free themselves from the tyranny that engulfs them."

"These changes undermine U.S. foreign policy and security objectives and will bring economic benefits to the Cuban regime," she added.

The administration announced Friday that students seeking academic credit and churches traveling for religious purposes will be able to go to Cuba. The plan will also let any American send as much as $500 every three months to Cuban citizens who are not part of the Castro administration and are not members of the Communist Party.

New Senator Marco Rubio of Floriday also dissented:

"I strongly oppose any new changes that weaken U.S. policy towards Cuba," Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida said in a statement. "I was opposed to the changes that have already been made by this administration and I oppose these new changes."

"I believe that what does need to change are the Cuban regime's repressive policies towards the independent press and labor unions, it's imprisonment of political prisoners and constant harassments of citizens with dissenting views, and its refusal to allow free multi-party elections," he added.

Even a prominent Democratic senator was appalled:

"I am deeply disappointed by President Obama's decision today to extend an economic life line to the Castro regime," said Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey. "This gift to the Castro brothers will provide the regime with the additional resources it needs to sustain its failing economy, while ordinary Cubans continue to struggle under the weight of more than 50 years of economic and political oppression."

COMMENT:  It's a big mistake on the part of the Obama administration.  Once again the signal is sent that we can be rolled.  The fact that an American ambassador is returning to Syria after five years, with no major concessions from the Syrian regime, indicates that the appeasement faction is still alive and well in the Obama White House, despite some tough words from Hillary Clinton in the past week.

Are there two Barack Obamas, one the left winger, the other the election-time moderate?  I believe there are.  We'll be presented with a moderate face as we enter the 2012 election cycle.  Buyer beware.

January 16, 2011     Permalink