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.

I appeared on Silvio Canto Jr.'s excellent radio talk show from Dallas yesterday.  The link is here.

We'll be live-blogging the State of the Union message tonight, so please join us.  Some members of Congress will be sitting with members of the opposite party, so we'll be watching to see who's with whom, and whether their spouses know.

JANUARY 25,  2011

10:55 P.M. ET:  Bachmann is finished.  She went a bit over the top in flag waving toward the end, and she was far more partisan than Paul Ryan.  A wash, I'd say.

10:51 P.M. ET:  Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota is now giving a response to the president on behalf of the congressional Tea Party caucus.  I think this is a very bad idea.  The opposition response should be unified.  Having a separate Tea Party response gives the impression of a divided opposition.

Bachmann is an intelligent, attractive woman who, at times, has been gaffe-prone.  Her response tonight is fine, but is technically flawed.  She isn't looking into the camera, bonding with the audience.  She's looking to the side, apparently reading from a teleprompter, and it destroys the connection.  This should have been corrected in rehearsal.

10:35 P.M. ET:  Ryan is finished.  A workmanlike speech from a man who does his homework.  It needed a spiritual lift, though.  Ryan will learn.  He has great talent.

10:30 P.M. ET:  Ryan is making a strong anti-government-expansion speech.  His arguments are powerful, but he needs to provide some inspiration, some vision of the future.  It's important that a leader not come off as simply a bookkeeper.  But he's awfully knowledgeable.

10:28 P.M. ET:  Ryan is attacking the Obama economic record, accusing the president of plunging the nation into deep debt. 

Ryan speaks well, and knows his stuff.  He comes off as young, maybe a man who will be at his prime in about four or six years. 

10:25 P.M. ET:  Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is now giving the Republican response.  He begins with a tribute to Gabby Giffords. 

First impression of the speech:  Well delivered, something of a campaign speech, but with no details.  It's hard to know exactly what the president actually plans.  I was glad to see a tilt toward American exceptionalism, and toward optimism.   Obama may be influenced by Reagan. 

State of the Union speeches are quickly forgotten.  The real business starts tomorrow morning. 

What clearly comes out of this speech, though, is how difficult Obama will be to defeat in 2012.  He is a superb campaigner, and has the ability to appeal, at least in speeches, to those in the middle, despite his own real views.  Don't underestimate this challenge.

10:13 P.M. ET:  The president concludes by an inspirational story of how an American company helped with the rescue of the the Chilean coal miners

The speech is over.  Mr. Obama did not introduce anyone associated with the Arizona shootings, which was a surprise, but was all to the better.  It would have smacked of exploitation. 

10:03 P.M. ET:  The president praises the end of "don't ask, don't tell" in the military, but then correctly asks all colleges and universities to open their doors to military recruiters and ROTC programs.  

10:03 P.M. ET:  Mr. Obama glosses over the clear setbacks in our foreign policy, especially on the Korean peninsula and in our attempts to reign in Iran.

10:01 P.M. ET:  The president talks about winding down operations in Iraq, but again gives no credit to his predecessor for making it possible.

He talks tough on terror, which is good, and continues the commitment to Afghanistan, while still saying that American troops will start returning from Afghanistan this year.  This is confusing because we've just sent additional troops, and no one seriously believes the fight is won.

9:59 P.M. ET:  Mr. Obama turns to foreign policy, and says American leadership has been restored.  This is a discordant note because it simply isn't true.  Our leadership has faltered, and our strength is questioned.  I hope the president can do better than this.

9:58 P.M. ET:  President says he will veto any legislation with earmarks.  Why don't I think so?

9:51 P.M. ET:  Surprise.  The president proposes reform of medical malpractice lawsuits.  Good.  Now let's see the details.

9:44 P.M. ET:  Some very shrewd writing here.  The president says he will work to eliminate unnecessary regulations that burden business.  On the other hand, he says he will continue to work to protect Americans...and lists some good things that government has done, like child labor laws.

Republicans must understand how powerful that argument is.  In truth, industry has sometimes fumbled, and somethings been irresponsible, and government has stepped in.  Eisenhower understood that.  Reagan understood that, and promised to maintain the American safety net.  Today's Republicans must be sensitive to things that Eisenhower and Reagan understood so well.  Conservatism must never mean callousness.

9:40 P.M. ET:  On balance, this is a good speech...so far.  Talking about new technology and providing a high-tech vision of the future always works.  We need the details, though.

The president now talks about reforming the tax codes to level the playing field for businesses and lower the corporate tax. 

9:37 P.M. ET:  The president now asks for us to work toward solving the issue of illegal immigration.  I see movement here, less ideological militancy.  He stresses the need to secure the borders and enforce the laws.  If he's serious, some reasonable solutions can be found.  But we never again want to see the president of the United States standing next to the president of Mexico, as Obama did, while the Mexican guy criticizes our laws.

9:29 P.M. ET:  Now the president is talking about the need to invest in education.  Okay, again, nothing very objectionable about what he's saying, but there's nothing new either.  Of course we have to invest in education.  But it would be nice to get some results for the billions spent.

9:26 P.M. ET:  Obama is talking about the need to invest in the future, especially in science and technology.  Nothing is objectionable here, but there are few details.

First controversial proposal:  The president proposes eliminating subsidies to oil companies, so the billions can be devoted to new energy sources.  However, the idea of "new energy sources" is vague, as many "new" ideas never materialize.  In what do we invest?

9:17 P.M. ET:  President begins with a call to civility, and even invokes American exceptionalism, that we are different from other nations.  Congratulations, Mr. President.  We didn't think you'd noticed.

9:11 P.M. ET:  The president has entered and has been introduced by the new Republican speaker, John Boehner.  Democrats did not break out into tears.  A little bit o'progress.

9:01 P.M. ET:  Members of Congress are seated, some members sitting with members of the opposite party.  I have observed no inappropriate behavior or vulgar groping. 

Six Supreme Court justices are present.  Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have wisely decided to do something useful.

The Cabinet has entered.  Hillary Clinton, president-in-waiting, gets the most attention.

9:00 P.M. ET:  WE NOW BEGIN OUR LIVE BLOGGING OF THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE. 

THE LUNATIC CORNER, PART II – AT 6:19 P.M. ET:  Do I detect the beginning of a little backbone from our delegation to the UN?  I certainly hope so.  But this case is so outrageous that it could make even our UN ambassador develop some backbone. 

The House today begins hearings on American participation in the UN's Human Rights Council, one of the most degenerate bodies in the UN, and that's saying a great deal.  George W. Bush wouldn't let this country participate in the Council, citing its bias and corruption.  Obama reversed that position, arguing – a child's argument – that we could influence the HRC by becoming a member.  That's like saying you can reform the Mafia by joining up.

The Council appointed one Richard Falk as an "expert" to investigate aspects of the Israeli/Palestinian dispute.  The painstream media described Falk as a "retired Princeton professor," never giving any more details.  But Falk is much, much more, and the much more has now erupted into a scandal.  From The Jerusalem Post:

NEW YORK – In a letter to a leader of a Geneva-based NGO that watches UN activity, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s office condemned Human Rights Council member Richard Falk for his remarks on 9/11, calling his views “preposterous.”

Just prior to Tuesday’s US Congressional hearing into the UN Human Rights Council, the secretary-general’s office sent a letter which "condemned" the Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur Falk for his "preposterous" comments questioning whether the 9/11 terrorist attacks were orchestrated by the US government.

Just a retired Princeton professor.

The Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch had called on the UN chief to condemn and remove Falk, after Falk’s controversial blog posting in which he endorsed a book by 9/11 conspiracy theorist David Ray Griffin, calling it “authoritative,” and wrote of an “apparent cover up” in which the Bush administration, rather than Al-Qaida, was responsible for the attacks.

UN Watch’s call for Falk’s resignation has been echoed by the New York Daily News, which asked in an editorial last Friday, “When will the lunacy reach such heights that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon realizes his so-called Human Rights Council is wrecking what little reputation the world body has left?”

US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice released a statement Tuesday calling Falk's remarks endorsing "the slurs of conspiracy theorists" "despicable," and registering a strong protest on the US's behalf to the UN.

"The United States has in the past been critical of Mr. Falk's one-sided and politicized approach to his work for the UN, including his failure to condemn deliberate human rights abuses by Hamas, but these blog comments are in another category altogether," Rice's statement read.

"In my view, Mr. Falk's latest commentary is so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he should no longer continue in his position on behalf of the UN," Rice stated. "I would note that U.S. and many other diplomats walked out in protest in September 2010 when Iranian President Ahmadinejad made similarly slanderous remarks before the UN General Assembly."

COMMENT:  We applaud Rice's comments.  Now it's time for journalism to examine how this crackpot, and longtime anti-American hatemonger, got the UN assignment, and why we never protested at the time.  Don't hold your breath.

January 25, 2011      Permalink

THE LUNATIC CORNER – AT 5:32 P.M. ET:  It is hard to believe that these people are permitted to roam free.  From The Hill:

Liberals want Keith Olbermann to run for retiring Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-Conn.) seat.

The ploy to coax the former MSNBC host into the Democratic Senate primary was hatched by activists attending a conference in Pennsylvania over the weekend.

Facebook and Twitter pages are already active and a website is expected to go up in the coming days.

"We’re using our full set of campaign tools but they won’t go active until we get a little downtime while we’re in D.C.," a blogger by the name of Stranded Wind wrote on the liberal website Daily Kos.

That's an appropriate name for a liberal blogger.

Olbermann left his show "Countdown" on Friday. He revealed over the weekend that he would return to his blog on MLB.com, Baseball Nerd, but has remained quiet about any other plans.

Should Olbermann decide to forgo a return to television, he could be eligible to run for Lieberman's seat, Stranded Wind notes. "He used to live in Connecticut and could easily return and establish residency."

COMMENT:  I'd love to see Olbermann run.  He might give his cohort at MSNBC, Chris Matthews, another tingle up his leg.

January 25, 2011      Permalink

OSCAR, THE STATUE – AT 10:26 A.M. ET:  Academy Award nominations were announced this morning.  There are now ten nominations for best picture, as opposed to the traditional five.  Given the state of modern movie making, it was hard enough to find five worthy nominees.  Ten is impossible, but commercial pressures forced the increase.

The Ten nominees are Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The Kids Are All Right, The King's Speech, 127 Hours, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, True Grit, and Winter's Bone.

I must confess that I've seen only two of the nominees, The Fighter and The Social Network.  I'm delighted that The Fighter was nominated.  It's one of the best-made films I've seen in years, with superb acting, an actual story, and crisp direction.  I caution about the in-the-ring boxing violence and the coarse language, wherein every verb is caressed by the same vivid adjective.  However, if you can get past those issues, this is a real movie movie, and worth seeing.

While I enjoyed The Social Network, the so-called "hottest" film of the year, I think it fell far short of greatness, and does not deserve an Oscar.  It is, as many readers will know, the fictionalized story of the invention of Facebook.  Good subject, but the movie is all head and no heart.  The details of the story are difficult to follow, and I don't recall a single character whom I actually liked.  In the end, the movie is about who gets what percentage of the profits, and I didn't particularly care.

Why is The Social Network the "hottest" movie?  My theory is that many influential film critics come from the same backgrounds as the people being portrayed – the movie is set at Harvard – and they saw a little of themselves up there.  The same can be said of many people populating the executive offices in Hollywood. 

I hope to see some of the other movies, and look forward especially to "The King's Speech," about the British monarchy in the 1930s.  I will comment, if anyone cares.

January 25, 2011      Permalink

AFTERMATH OF MOSCOW – AT 9:35 A.M. ET:  Yesterday's devastating attack in Moscow already has prompted some rethinking about security at America's airports.  The Washington Post reports: 

By midafternoon most days, hundreds of people gather just outside the security perimeter to wait for passengers coming in on international flights at Dulles International Airport.

Just like the dozens killed and injured at a Moscow airport on Monday, they are vulnerable to a terrorist who walks into their midst laden with explosives, said Rafi Ron, the former security chief at Tel Aviv's Ben-Gurion International Airport.

"That becomes a very attractive target to a suicide bomber," Ron said. "The attack in Moscow should draw attention to the need for increased security in these areas."

Spokesmen for the three major Washington-area airports - Dulles, Baltimore-Washington Marshall International and Reagan National - said there were no disruptions in service or changes to security at their facilities. They referred additional questions about their security measures to the federal Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

"We are monitoring the tragedy at Moscow's Domodedovo airport," TSA spokesman Nicolas Kimball said in a written statement. "As always, we are working with our international partners to share information regarding the latest terrorist tactics and security best practices. Passengers may continue to notice unpredictable security measures in all areas of U.S. airports, including before the checkpoint. These measures include explosives-detection technology, canine teams and Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams, among other measures both seen and unseen.

COMMENT:  We have been lucky up to now, in part because of the incompetence of our enemies.  But the Moscow operation demonstrated that terror groups can mount an attack precisely, with weapons that work, and with devastating effect.  On guard.

January 25, 2011      Permalink

THE HYPOCRISY FLOWS – AT 9:03 A.M. ET:  For those who will hang on every one of Barack Obama's words tonight, a word of advice:  He has a way of changing his "view" of things.  Consider his sudden, and deeply passionate, love for Ronald Reagan.  Byron York makes this note in the Washington Examiner:

In an article published in USA Today, President Obama praises President Ronald Reagan as a man with a "unique ability to inspire others to greatness." Obama also says of Reagan that "there is no denying his leadership in the world, or his gift for communicating his vision for America." The late president, Obama continues, "understood that it is always 'Morning in America.' That was his gift, and we remain forever grateful."

Obama's view of Reagan today is far different from the discussion of Reagan in Obama's 1995 autobiography Dreams From My Father. In that book, Obama says his strong feelings about the Republican president were part of the reason he decided to become a community organizer. "When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn't answer them directly," Obama wrote. "Instead, I'd pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds…"

In another part of the book, Obama criticized Reagan for "verbal legerdemain." By that, he was accusing Reagan of intentionally maintaining a gap between his sunny rhetoric and the actions of his administration. Now, President Obama praises Reagan's "faith in the American promise."

COMMENT:  All Obama has to do is put a bowl of jelly beans on his desk, and the picture will be complete. 

As for that book, he can claim that someone else wrote it.  No, I didn't say that.  I really didn't say that.  My fingers slipped on the keys.  It's an old psychological problem.

I think that, fundamentally, Mr. Obama is a man of the left, a left that goes well beyond traditional liberalism.  At the same time, he's a hopeless opportunist, and he wants that second term badly.  To get it, he may go so far as to do something right.

January 25, 2011      Permalink

GONE – AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  Carol Browner, the president's point woman on energy and "climate change" policy, is leaving the administration.  Browner, who's hinted in the past that she's a socialist (shock), doesn't exactly have big victories to point to.  From The Washington Post:

Carol Browner, a key adviser to President Obama on energy and environmental issues, said Monday night that she plans to leave the White House.

Her departure comes as something of a surprise. Browner had been a key part of the team helping to deal with and stop the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last year.

Notice her effectiveness.  What precisely did she do?

And she had been deeply involved in congressional negotiations over climate legislation. The measure passed the House last year but died in the Senate, and given the current makeup of Congress, its prospects of coming up for a vote are widely seen as nil. President Obama is instead expected to seek common ground with Republicans over ways to promote the burning of natural gas, rather than coal, by utilities with aging coal plants.

Given this record, why does the reporter say that her departure is "something of a surprise"?  Wouldn't you leave too?

Advisers described Browner as an integral voice in internal discussions, the rare outsider to join the upper ranks of Obama's staff. The Florida native's departure comes at a time when many industrial and mining companies, and as Republicans -- and a few Democrats -- are vowing to block the EPA from implementing new regulations on large generators of greenhouse gases.

Environmentalists regarded her as a key liaison to the West Wing, and her leaving is certain to add to the anxiety of many on the political left already nervous about Obama's outreach to industry.

We weep and cry.

COMMENT:  Environmentalists have enormous power within the Democratic Party.  And being pro-environment is hardly controversial.  However, more and more Americans are becoming skeptical about some of the more extreme claims of the environmental movement (or industry, if you will).  Someone in Browner's position could have performed a real service by trying to get to the truth of some of the claims and counter-claims, but she either chose not to, or knew that it was impossible in a Democratic administration.

January 25, 2011       Permalink

BIG SPEECH TONIGHT – AT 8:07 P.M. ET:  The State of the Union speech is tonight.  Now, please note the time on your clocks...right now.  Do you realize that, at this same time tomorrow morning, you will have forgotten everything that's going to be said tonight?  Check me on that.

Pundits yesterday were predicting a largely ceremonial and patriotic speech.  That seems to be the main intent.  Indeed, the recent shootings in Arizona will be front and center, with the president introducing some of those affected.  This, apparently, will include the family of the nine-year-old girl who was slain, which, in my personal view, raises serious questions of taste.  How about leaving some of these people alone?

The State of the Union is starting to look like editions of the old Ed Sullivan shows of many a Sunday night – when Sullivan would introduce members of the audience.  "Sitting out in the audience tonight, the winner of the gin game at Tony's Bar and Grill..."

As to the substance of the speech, there are some conflicting predictions.  Some say the president will turn himself into a deficit hawk, rushing to the right of the Republican establishment.  Others say he will actually call for more spending, more "investment" in the future.  Well, we don't have to wait too many hours to find out.

The president has been rising in the polls.  He wants to keep it that way, and attract independents to his column in 2012.  And yet, he must also energize the increasingly left-wing base of the Democratic Party, now largely stripped of its moderate wing in the House by the results of the November election. 

The president may well get another poll boost tonight, especially if he lays on the emotion and patriotism with appropriate (and probably false) thickness.  In the days that follow, though, he's got to present the federal budget for the coming year, and that's when the fireworks truly begin.

America will get a good look tonight at Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who will deliver the Republican response.  Ryan is already being seriously mentioned for higher office.  The response to the State of the Union gives him a platform he's never had before.  He gets this one shot, and must do well.  Recall the catastrophic performance of Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, whose strikeout in giving a State of the Union response to Obama dulled his previously shining star. 

January 25, 2011     Permalink 

JANUARY 24,  2011

STATE OF OUR COLLEGES – AT 9:43 P.M. ET:  Reader Jean Spik alerts us to an excellent column in the Washington Post by former Republican member of congress Heather Wilson, a Rhodes Scholar, and the first Air Force Academy graduate to be elected to Congress.  She worries about some of the things going on in our colleges:

For most of the past 20 years I have served on selection committees for the Rhodes Scholarship. In general, the experience is an annual reminder of the tremendous promise of America's next generation...

...I have, however, become increasingly concerned in recent years - not about the talent of the applicants but about the education American universities are providing. Even from America's great liberal arts colleges, transcripts reflect an undergraduate specialization that would have been unthinkably narrow just a generation ago.

As a result, high-achieving students seem less able to grapple with issues that require them to think across disciplines or reflect on difficult questions about what matters and why.

And...

An outstanding biochemistry major wants to be a doctor and supports the president's health-care bill but doesn't really know why. A student who started a chapter of Global Zero at his university hasn't really thought about whether a world in which great powers have divested themselves of nuclear weapons would be more stable or less so, or whether nuclear deterrence can ever be moral.

Yes, we've noticed.

Our great universities seem to have redefined what it means to be an exceptional student. They are producing top students who have given very little thought to matters beyond their impressive grasp of an intense area of study.

This narrowing has resulted in a curiously unprepared and superficial pre-professionalism.

And...

I detect no lack of seriousness or ambition in these students. They believe they are exceptionally well-educated. They have jumped expertly through every hoop put in front of them to be the top of their classes in our country's best universities, and they have been lavishly praised for doing so. They seem so surprised when asked simple direct questions that they have never considered.

Why shouldn't they be surprised?  They've been told how wonderful they are, how perfect they are, and they are endlessly protected by their colleges from being "offended."

Many of our young people spend four years getting very expensive college degrees. But our universities fail them and the nation if they continue to graduate students with expertise in biochemistry, mathematics or history without teaching them to think about what problems are important and why.

COMMENT:  One of the great myths about colleges and universities is that they are deeply intellectual places.  Most are not.  Indeed, non-intellectualism, or even anti-intellectualism, have often been mainstays of American higher education.   There is more trendiness than thought going on. 

Excellent column, highly recommended.

Oh, by the way, Heather Wilson is both a Republican and a Rhodes Scholar.  But I've been told that Republicans are dumb?  How did she happen?

January 24, 2011       Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 9:20 P.M. ET:

DETROIT (AP) -- General Motors Co. sold more cars and trucks in China last year than it did in the U.S., for the first time in the company's 102-year history.

That's only because American buyers rejected the model whose CD player ejects fortune cookies.

January 24, 2011      Permalink

POLITICAL EARTHQUAKE – AT 4:52 P.M. ET:  An Illinois court has ruled that former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel does meet the residency requirements to run for mayor.  The mayoral vote is February 22nd.  From the Chicago Tribune:

Rahm Emanuel should not appear on the Feb. 22 mayoral ballot because he does not meet the residency standard, according to a ruling issued by a state appellate court today.

Emanuel told a news conference he would appeal the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court and would ask for an injunction so his name will appear on the mayoral ballot.

"I have no doubt at the end we'll prevail in this effort," Emanuel said. “We’ll now go to the next level to get clarity."

“I still own a home here, (I) look forward to moving into it one day, vote from here, pay property taxes here. I do believe the people of the city of Chicago deserve a right to make a decision about who they want to be their next mayor," Emanuel said.

In a 2-1 ruling, the appellate panel said Emanuel does not meet the residency requirement of having lived in Chicago for a year prior to the election. The judges reversed a decision by the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, which had unanimously agreed that Emanuel was eligible to run for mayor. (Read the appeals court's ruling here.)

"We conclude that the candidate neither meets the Municipal Code's requirement that he have 'resided in' Chicago for the year preceding the election in which he seeks to participate nor falls within any exception to the requirement," the majority judges wrote.

COMMENT:  Emanuel is well ahead in the polls.  His closest challenger, corrupt former Senator Carol Moseley Braun, is something of the order of 20 points behind. 

I'm not a lawyer, and so cannot comment on the legal aspects here.  But from a public-policy viewpoint, this decision is awful, whether you like Rahm Emanuel or not.  I think there's always been an assumption that when you're called to federal service by the president, that 1) you go, and 2) that you aren't stripped of your local residency. 

Emanuel grew up in Chicago.  He was a congressman from Chicago.  To deny him the right to run for mayor simply because he has been living temporarily in Washington seems extreme to me.  As he correctly points out, the people of Chicago have a right to decide who they want to be their mayor.  I would feel, as a citizen, that the case against him would have to be overwhelming to take him off the ballot. 

We look forward to the decision by the Illinois Supreme Court.

Politics is always fun in Illinois.

January 24, 2011      Permalink

TERROR UPDATE – AT 4:35 P.M. ET:  Russian authorities have confirmed that the explosion at a major Moscow airport today was the work of terrorists:

Moscow (CNN) -- Terrorists detonated a bomb at Moscow's busiest airport on Monday, killing 35 people and wounding 152, Russian authorities said.

President Dmitry Medvedev, who called the bombing a terrorist attack, ordered additional security at airports and transportation hubs around the country, and Moscow police went on high alert in case of additional bombs.

The explosion occurred about 4:30 p.m. at the entrance of the international arrivals section of Domodedovo Airport, Itar-Tass said, citing a spokeswoman for the Russian Investigative Committee, Tatyana Morozova.
State TV aired video of the smoke-filled terminal, including what appeared to be bodies and luggage on the ground.

Then there's this:

State TV, citing Russian authorities, said the bombing was the act of a suicide bomber who stuffed a homemade bomb with small metal objects to make it more deadly, then activated it in a crowded area where many people were waiting for arriving passengers. CNN could not independently verify those claims.

COMMENT:  No, CNN could not independently verify those claims, and, of course, CNN doesn't want us to jump to any conclusions.  Compare please with CNN's behavior after the Arizona shootings several weeks ago, when the network rushed to quote any nutbag with something to say about the "political atmosphere" and "heated rhetoric," especially the rhetoric of the sinister revolutionary, Sarah Palin. 

The hypocrisy flows, and the ratings continue to plummet.

January 24, 2011      Permalink

BULLETIN – AT 9:48 A.M. ET:  These are preliminary reports of a possible suicide bombing in Moscow:

MOSCOW -- The Russian state RIA Novosti news agency says an explosion at Moscow's busiest airport has killed 23 people and wounded 130.

The news report cites the Health Ministry.

RIA Novosti says Monday's explosion in the arrivals hall at Domodedovo Airport may have been caused by a suicide bomber.

COMMENT:  Other reports state definitively that it was a suicide bomber.  CNN is now reporting that 31 have been killed.

If indeed it was a suicide bomber, there might be an immediate ripple effect in stepped-up security at American airports and train stations.

Obviously, we'll follow this.

January 24, 2011      Permalink

WHERE THERE'S "CLIMATE-CHANGE" TALK, THERE'S MONEY – AT 9:23 A.M. ET:  Many climate-change skeptics have pointed out that a great deal of money is involved in the subject.  There is grant money, there are new technological gimmicks (workable or not), there are new companies that offer climate-change "services" (like carbon credits), and now there is the entry of the learned ladies and gentlemen of the bar.  From AFP:

PARIS — From being a marginal and even mocked issue, climate-change litigation is fast emerging as a new frontier of law where some believe hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake.

Compensation for losses inflicted by man-made global warming would be jaw-dropping, a payout that would make tobacco and asbestos damages look like pocket money.

Imagine: a country or an individual could get redress for a drought that destroyed farmland, for floods and storms that created an army of refugees, for rising seas that wiped a small island state off the map.

In the past three years, the number of climate-related lawsuits has ballooned, filling the void of political efforts in tackling greenhouse-gas emissions.

Eyeing the money-spinning potential, some major commercial law firms now place climate-change litigation in their Internet shop window.

Seminars on climate law are often thickly attended by corporations that could be in the firing line -- and by the companies that insure them.

However, there is also a bit of good news here.  Courts aren't genuflecting before the new legal wizardry:

But legal experts sound a note of caution, warning that this is a new and mist-shrouded area of justice.

Many obstacles lie ahead before a Western court awards a cent in climate damages and even more before the award is upheld on appeal.

"There's a large number of entrepreneurial lawyers and NGOs who are hunting around for a way to gain leverage on the climate problem," said David Victor, director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California at San Diego.

"The number of suits filed has increased radically. But the number of suits claiming damages from climate change that have been successful remains zero."

COMMENT:  This is a well-reported story, worth reading.  The implications go beyond lawsuits, and into the possibilities that corporations and entrpreneurs will have to practice extreme caution, which can stifle creativity, to avoid future legal problems.

How big is this?  Consider:  Columbia University's law school has established a Center for Climate Change Law. 

Everybody duck.

January 24, 2011      Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:56 A.M. ET:  Reader Bart Rogers alerts us to a superb column by Victor Davis Hanson in which Hanson examines the ease with which President Obama has used "edged rhetoric," some openly inflammatory, to advance his own causes, making his Tucson speech seem like utter hypocrisy:

Edged rhetoric surely worked against Hillary Clinton when the wife of the first “black” president was reduced to a veritable racist. And it worked in 2007-8 against an incumbent Bush whose sober post-9/11 implementation of tribunals, renditions, Guantanamo, Predators, preventative detention, wiretaps, and intercepts was reduced by Obama to a near fascist takeover of the country — until they were all adapted by a President Obama himself. To this day, stung Bushites still offer up massive aid to Africa, prescription drug benefits, No Child Left Behind, and deficit spending on social programs to prove they were not the bloodthirsty Draculas who set up the gulag at Guantanamo and unleashed the children-destroying Predator drones.

We all know what is coming in 2012 — the most well-financed, Wall Street-subsidized, vitriolic camping in modern memory, in which Obama’s rivals will be metaphorically reduced to caricatures of racist, selfish, and cruel nativists.

Hanson notes that Obama gave a "let us all come together" speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, thrusting himself onto the national stage:

The 2011 Tucson speech will have about as much resonance with Obama’s impending campaign style as the 2004 oration affected his 2004-9 political behavior.

COMMENT:  Republicans must not be lulled to sleep by their political success in November.  Already the president's poll numbers are rising, as we noted here last night.  And any idea that the liberal attack machine will become more civilized should be laid to rest. "Civilized" isn't what they're about.

I've seen, in recent weeks, an attempt by liberal writers to begin to paint an Obama 2012 victory as almost inevitable.  That, combined with an uninspiring GOP presidential field, can truly create a real Obama inevitability.

As Hanson points out, Obama has lulled us to sleep before.  Attacking a sleeping enemy is an old, and successful, military technique.

January 24, 2011       Permalink

EVERY CITIZEN A MEDICAL DOCTOR – AT 8:35 A.M. ET:   We joyously bring you new developments in the inspiring progress of Britain's National Health Service, the role model for many who believe Obamacare will truly mean the end of both death and wasteful practices.  From Britain's Daily Mail:

Patients are to be told to examine themselves at home and email their GP with the results rather than meeting face to face.

They would send in a short message describing symptoms which would be answered by a doctor between appointments or at the end of the working day.

Those with long-term conditions such as heart failure, diabetes or lung disease could even be asked to measure their own blood pressure, glucose levels and temperature, sending the results to the surgery.

Ministers want to cut ‘unnecessary’ appointments in the hope of saving up to £1billion a year while at the same time allowing GPs to devote their attention to the most seriously ill.

Nothing like allowing government ministers the power to decide even how people are seen at a doctor's office.

Thousands of patients in England have already been issued with handheld devices and asked to send in their own measurements to their surgeries. But leading doctors are worried about the ‘remote’ diagnosis plans and fear life-threatening illnesses will be missed.

The British Medical Association has warned that standards of care will be jeopardised and GPs will be forced to spend much of their day answering emails rather seeing patients.

COMMENT:  If adopted here, we truly will become the iPhone society.

Now, it is true that handheld devices might prove very useful in transmitting data, especially in an emergency.  But I wonder how much of the doctor's time will actually be saved in Britain by this scheme.  The doctor still has to analyze the data, examine the patient's records, and, in all probability, flash back some questions for the patient.  You know, I think I'd rather be sitting in the doctor's office.

Welcome to our brave new world.

January 24, 2011      Permalink

SOTU TOMORROW NIGHT – AT 8:21 A.M. ET:  President Obama delivers the State of the Union speech tomorrow night.  Can you sense the excitement?  No, either can I. 

Journalists like to say that the speech is "anticipated" or even "highly anticipated."  Well, of course.  It's anticipated the way a dental bill is anticipated.  You know it's coming, and it's going to happen whether you like it or not, so anticipate it.

The Politico purports to tell us what will be in the speech:

When President Barack Obama steps into the House chamber Tuesday to deliver his second State of the Union address, ambience will trump substance.

In his speech, the president will talk about jobs, the deficit and the future of the nation’s troubled economy, but most of the attention is going to be on the theatrics in the room. It will be a night defined by the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and murder of six bystanders in Tucson less than a month ago and the highly public soul-searching that has played out since then on the need for greater civility in political debate.

Oh come on.  The "soul-searching" lasted just long enough for the hysterical left to make a collective fool of itself.  People will be expecting substance tomorrow night.

Obama will honor Giffords and other victims of the shootings, their families and the heroic first responders. His aides believe he’ll reach a broader audience with an emotional and patriotic appeal — one without the faintest whiff of partisan politics.

Hey, I've got an idea.  How about a speech with some intelligent proposals?  Isn't that radical? 

But the president’s triumphant speech in Tucson, itself a hard act to follow, takes some of the pressure off, easing expectations that he will deliver a soaring speech, which State of the Union addresses rarely are.

Do you get the feeling that this reporter is back in 2008?  Obama worship seems to be making a return to the establishment media.  Now we are told that the president's "triumphant" speech in Tucson is a hard act to follow.  Really?  How many viewers will remember much about that speech?  The Gettysburg Address it was not.

We'll wait and see, but this is the time for Mr. Obama to recognize the results of the November election and propose an agenda that can attract support across the aisle.  If he simply resorts to an emotional, flag-waving appeal, he may find disappointment in the public, rather than renewed respect.  We expect him to be president, not just run for the office, which is his tendency.

January 24, 2011     Permalink