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.

AT OUR LATEST ANGEL'S CORNER:  READERS BLOG ABOUT THE DANGER OF RECKLESS DEFENSE CUTS; THE PROBLEM OF REPUBLICAN MODESTY; THE MOUTH OF JANE FONDA; AND THE MOUTH OF BARACK OBAMA; ASSIGNING BLAME IN THE DEBT DEBATE; SKEPTICISM ABOUT POLLING; AND MR. PARKINSON'S LAWS

JULY 23,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 7:14 P.M. ET:

NORWAY – No dramatic developments.  One researcher at a human-rights group claims he's traced the alleged killer's e-mail address to a pseudonym at a neo-Nazi website in Sweden.  I was also struck by a report saying that, up to yesterday, the most heavily fortified building in Oslo was the US Embassy, a fact that, the story said, produced eye rolling among Norwegians, who thought the security excessive.  Perhaps the eye rolling will now stop, and the adolescent mentality that accompanied it will stop as well. 

ANOTHER BUSH? – Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush has raised eyebrows by saying he doesn't "anticipate" a run for the presidency in 2012.  It wasn't exactly the Sherman oath.  Bush also said he's learned never to say never.  Bush is a very attractive guy, with a fine record as governor.  But most observers see him for 2016, when some of the anger directed toward his ex-president brother dies down.  I think that's probably good common political sense.  But, you never know when the itch strikes a politician.  If Jeb sees an opening for 2012, I wouldn't be shocked to see him "reassess" his position.

FIVE-DOLLAR GAS? – Oil experts suggest the possibility that gasoline prices, rising again, could possibly top five dollars a gallon during 2011 if the US Government defaults, if there's unrest in another oil-producing nation in the Mideast, or if emerging markets in Asia and Latin America start to use even more oil, driving the price upward.  Five-dollar gas could be disastrous for the American economy, driving down consumer spending for other items, and possibly driving up unemployment.  It could also have a profound political effect on President Obama, assuming Republicans, who work hard to lose elections, can come up with a coherent, convincing plan to lower prices if they win next year.

AGAIN, SAN FRANCISCO – A legislative proposal in San Francisco would make felons and ex-convicts a protected class, along with the currently listed protectees, which include blacks, preganant women, and people with all kinds of problems.   Under the proposal, employers and landlords would not be permitted to ask applicants if they have a criminal past.  Makes perfect sense if you think like the San Francisco left.  After all, why would a day-care center have to know if an applicant is a convicted child molester or sex offender?  We must rise above these simple prejudices, darlings.

July 23, 2011       Permalink

OBAMA NOT LEFT ENOUGH? – AT 11:55 A.M. ET:   CNN is reporting that President Obama's approval is down among liberals.  I wonder what their alternative is?  I mean, Dennis Kucinich isn't running...yet:

Washington (CNN) – President Barack Obama's approval rating is down to 45 percent, driven in part by growing dissatisfaction on the left with the president's track record in office, according to a new national survey.
A CNN/ORC International Poll also indicates that the Republican "brand" is taking a beating in the minds of Americans.

The survey's Friday release comes as the Obama administration and top congressional officials continue talks on a potential deal tying roughly $3 trillion in new savings over the next decade to an increase in the nation's debt ceiling. If Congress and the President fail to raise the country's $14.3 trillion limit by August 2, Americans could face rising interest rates, a declining dollar and increasingly jittery financial markets, among other problems.

According to the poll, the president's 45 percent approval rating is down three points from June. Fifty-four percent of people questioned disapprove of how Obama's handling his duties, up six points from last month. His 54 percent disapproval rating ties the all-time high in CNN polling that the president initially reached just before last year's midterm elections.

"But drill down into that number and you'll see signs of a stirring discontent on the left," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Thirty-eight percent say they disapprove because President Obama has been too liberal, but 13 percent say they disapprove of Obama because he has not been liberal enough - nearly double what it was in May, when the question was last asked, and the first time that number has hit double digits in Obama's presidency."

Looking at that figure another way, roughly one in four Americans who disapprove of the president say they feel that way because he's not been liberal enough.

Obama's approval rating among liberals has dropped to 71 percent, the lowest point in his presidency. And the number of Democrats who want the party to renominate Obama next year, now at 77 percent, is relatively robust by historical standards but is also down a bit since June.

"It's likely that this is a reaction to some of Obama's recent actions, including his willingness to discuss major changes in Social Security and Medicare as part of the debt ceiling negotiations," adds Holland.

COMMENT:  Well, let's look at that.  So 13% of Americans don't think Obama is liberal enough.  What does that tell you about so-called "liberals"?   It really tells you that there's a liberal fringe, which can't muster more than 13%, that has really always been there.  It's concentrated in some parts of big cities, in college towns, and among people who pine for Ralph Nader. 

These folks will have nowhere to go but Obama in the general, but they can also stay home.  That is a legitimate worry for the Obama crowd.  It was stay-at-home Dems who sank Hubert Humphrey's campaign in 1968.  But I don't see the more-liberal-than-Obama faction running America anytime soon.

July 23, 2011       Permalink 

SMART, SMART, SMART – AT 10:53 A.M. ET:  I've been watching Rick Perry carefully.  It's clear he's about to enter the race for the GOP presidential nomination.  It's also clear a lot of people aren't satisfied with the current field.

The more I see of Perry, the more I like.  He's smart, he's fast, he's practical.  I sense that he can get the job done.  I also sense that he fights back, that he won't be intimidated by a press that will try to destroy him right from the start.  (Wait 'til you hear some pundit say, "Rick Perry makes George W. Bush look like a liberal."  Believe me, it's coming.)

Perry also oozes common sense.  He knows when to leave things alone, and recognizes that ideological groups within parties must, as Reagan knew, sometimes be kept at a bit of a distance.  Consider this, from The Politico:

Rick Perry's comment which we noted earlier - that the New York gay marriage law set to take effect on Sunday is "their business" but that he's fine with it - comes as part of his states-rights sell, which would be a strong basis of his candidacy. It's also in keeping with his anti-Washington comments (and book).

According to the AP:

"Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That's New York, and that's their business, and that's fine with me," he said to applause from several hundred GOP donors in Aspen, Colo. "That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business."

He also said he strongly opposes same-sex marriage himself, which he's made clear. Still, his comments may further inflame some Tea Party critics, who have questioned his conservative credentials.

But not couching his opinion in federal terms would give him something of a bridge in a general election on an issue where the national popular opinion has, gradually but clearly, shifted.

COMMENT:  Exactly right.  No matter how you feel about gay marriage, it is nuts for the Republican Party to get hung up over it.  Perry has punted to the states, and that's a good, sound strategy.

Remember, Ronald Reagan never addressed an anti-abortion rally in person.  He always did it by phone.  He kept his distance from these social issues, as did FDR, who borrowed some programs from the socialist movement, but never acknowledged it. 

Having a set of clear priorities is critical to an election campaign.  Perry understands that.  In politics, I'd rather have 65% of something than 100% of nothing.  Ideologists, across the political spectrum, never understand that.  Please recall Winston Churchill's definition of a fanatic, as someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.  Fanatics don't win elections.

July 23, 2011       Permalink

NORWAY – AT 10:17 A.M. ET:  The death toll continues to rise, with 84 now confirmed dead at the youth camp attacked by at least one gunman yesterday.  We say "at least" because eyewitnesses say they saw a second gunman.  His existence is unconfirmed.  Eyewitness reports can be notoriously inaccurate.  There may have been a second gunman, there may not have been.

It now appears the shooting at the camp went on for two hours.  Two hours in which children were sitting ducks.  It appears there was no security provided at all, with no one nearby trained in defense, no one with a weapon.  I don't wish to sound political, or to wave the National Rifle Association flag, but this is what happens when only the criminals have guns. 

I watched the Norwegian prime minister on TV in the middle of the night.  It was like watching a town official in the United States.  We reported yesterday that Norway drives American security people crazy because it doesn't take terrorism seriously, and never believed it could happen in Norway.  It can happen in Norway.

The alleged shooter had bought six tons of fertilizer, which is used to make explosives.  It was sold to him by a supply house, but the house did not feel the sale was suspicious because the purchaser, now the alleged gunman, was involved in agriculture.  Gee.  Six tons sounds like a lot for a small farming operation.

The alleged shooter, who also presumably set off the huge bomb in Oslo earlier in the day, is described as a "Christian conservative" with right-wing views, and was associated with extremist groups.  I'd be awfully careful about descriptions at this point.  The international left is going to have a field day with this one, and I can just hear the leftist commentators in the United States trying to link the horror in Norway to, say, the thinking of the Tea Party in America.  After all, that is exactly what they did after the Tucson shooting.  In Tucson, the alleged shooter turned out to be a mental case with no known politics.

It is remarkable to watch reporters contrast the violence in Norway to the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by that country.  The cynicism flows.  The Nobel Peace Prize has become a bad joke, but to some on the left it is still an iconic award.   I mean, they gave it to Jimmy Carter and Al Gore, didn't they?

Already the foreign minister of Norway, who reflects the naiveté of his society, is lecturing Norwegians about not jumping to conclusions after terror attacks.  Many did assume, in the first hours, that this assault was the work of Al Qaeda.  The foreign minister was quick to say that most political violence in Norway comes from the right.  He did not add that most terror violence in the world comes from jihadists, but he's a major-league appeaser, so why ruin the party line?

We'll keep you posted if anything is new. 

July 23,  2011     Permalink

JULY 22,  2011

BULLETIN – NORWAY – AT 10:53 P.M. ET:  Norwegian police now say more than 80 kids were murdered by the gunman who attacked them at a politically related outing earlier today.  Presumably, this same individual, some time before, set off a huge bomb outside the building housing the prime minister's office.

COMMENT:  This is getting awfully strange.  Why did it take police so many hours to admit to such a huge casualty toll?  Before this announcement we were told that 17 were dead.  That's quite a difference, 80 plus as opposed to 17.

Also, how does one man kill 80 people...and then get captured so easily?  We have eyewitness reports that say the kids scattered as soon as the shooting started.   Was there an accomplice?

We wrote below that the "sole gunman" scenario, which apparently is being pushed by unidentified Norwegian "officials," is awfully convenient for a government that never took terrorism seriously, and was criticized for it by American security experts. 

News reports say the police claim the one man in custody has "right-wing" sympathies.  Let's see, and let's see what they mean by "right wing."

There's a lot of explaining to do.

July 22, 2011       Permalink

NORWAY – SECOND UPDATE – AT 9:16 P.M. ET:  Norwegian authorities are now suggesting that today's terror attacks were the work of one man acting alone – setting off the bomb in Oslo, then traveling to the youth camp and opening fire on kids.  He is described as a 32-year-old Norwegian.

Obviously, this is an initial report.  It could very well turn out to be true, and we are prepared to accept that if the evidence is there.  So far, we haven't seen any evidence.  Who is he?  What does he believe?  Where would he have gotten the expertise to build so large and sophisticated a bomb?  A number of reports say that he traveled to the island where he murdered those kids by ferry, carrying guns, apparently in a package of some kind.  But reports quoting authorities also say that explosives were found on the island.  Was he carrying these, too?  Must have been a big package.

We learned from British sources today that the United States has been intensely frustrated with Norway's casual attitude toward terror, especially true of its current goofball left-wing government.  Just a day before the attacks, Norway's foreign minister advocated opening talks with Al Qaeda in Somalia.  There is no end to the Norwegian government's willingness to talk to anyone, with no result.

With a policy background like that, a finding that the terror attacks were the work of a lone killer is ideal.  No terrorist connection.  No complications with the Muslim world.  No nasty stuff about local fascist groups to drive away tourists.  Already the attacks are being called Norway's "Oklahoma City."  You know, a homegrown nutbag.

But I've always felt that the Oklahoma City investigation was itself a bit too convenient.  Some enterprising reporters found very odd connections, they claimed, between the convicted Oklahoma City bombers and foreign elements.  But the reports were disparaged by Washington. 

We will wait for the Norwegian investigation.  The press over there is the standard, garden-variety left-wing type, so don't hold your breath for any tough questions.  But I hope that some energetic international journalists will shadow the probe and do their own investigating.  I don't go for conspiracy theories, but I will describe myself as skeptical that one man could pull off two sophisticated attacks in the same day, using a well-designed car bomb.  The methods he used – the car bomb, dressing in a policeman's uniform – fit in very well with the methods used by terror groups in a number of Mideast and Asian countries.

Ask questions.

July 22, 2011       Permalink

NORWAY UPDATE – AT 4:20 P.M. ET:  Reports remain sketchy, and some unconfirmed, but it appears the casualty list in Norway will grow dramatically.  There were two incidents – a huge bombing in Oslo, and a lone gunman opening fire at a politically connected youth camp on an island near Oslo.  There are these developments:

Eyewitnesses say they saw at least 20 bodies floating in the water off the island where the shooting attack occurred.  Since the island housed a youth camp, these would almost certainly be young people.

A report broadcast by CNN, but unconfirmed, says that the gunman who opened fire was also seen in the vicinity of the Oslo blast earlier in the day.

Most surprising, CNN is also reporting that the gunman has been captured, and is described as a tall, Nordic-looking man, not Middle Eastern or Asian.  This is unconfirmed, and may or may not be significant.  Norway has been concerned about home-grown terrorism, but the concern apparently centers on Norwegians linked to Islamist organizations.

Stand by.

July 22, 2011       Permalink

BULLETIN:  TERROR IN NORWAY – AT 2:03 P.M. ET:  We are closely following the terror attack in Oslo, Norway, today.  A huge bomb went off in or near the building housing the prime minister's office.  The prime minister is safe, but there are many casualties on the street.  Late reports say at least seven have been killed, but we caution about using specific numbers this early in an event.

At the same time, there has been a shooting at a youth camp run by the prime minister's leftist party, on an island near Oslo.  There are casualties, but we don't have details.  Initial police response is that the bomb and shooting are linked.  There is a report that the shooter has been captured, but it is unconfirmed.

It's important for readers to get past the image of Norway as another sweet Scandinavian country.  The Scandinavian nations have different cultures and often dramatically different political styles.  Although a member of NATO, Norway has a problematical political past.  An uncomfortable number of Norwegians sided with the Nazis before and during World War II.  The term "Quisling," meaning traitor, comes from the fact that Nazi-occupied Norway was administered by a Norwegian politician by that name.

The Nobel Peace Prize is given in Oslo, the only Nobel Prize not given in Sweden.  When it was given to Jimmy Carter, members of the prize committee made it clear it was a "kick in the shins," as one put it, to George W. Bush.  While Norway has some troops in Afghanistan, and has participated in the Libya operation, its government is notably aloof to Israel, and anti-Semitism has become a serious problem, especially in its universities.  It is a complex nation.

Recently, an Iraqi cleric in some legal trouble in Norway threatened to kill Norwegians.  An Islamist group has already taken credit for today's attacks, but there is no evidence that the claim is truthful.

Stand by.

July 22, 2011       Permalink

AND A WARNING FROM HISTORY – AT 10:07 A.M. ET:  We have warned here at Urgent Agenda that our understandable preoccupation with the economy is diverting our eyes from foreign policy.  When, for example, did you read the last thoughtful story about Iran and its threat to its region and the world?  We really don't seem to care much any longer.  George McGovern's shortsighted, cynical cry, "Come home America!" is finally taking hold in some precincts...including some conservative precints.  Believe me, conservatives on particular occasions can be just as cynical and depressing as liberals. 

There's a new book out by historian Erik Larson, "In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler's Berlin."  In the book, Larson traces the experience of the American ambassador to Berlin, William E. Dodd, and his daughter, Martha, as they arrived in the city in 1933, enthusiastic about the revolutionary atmosphere, only later to be repelled by Hitler's bestiality.  In a recent interview, Larson reflected on the feeling, often expressed, that President Franklin D. Roosevelt could have done more to battle Hitler in the early 30s, when Nazi Germany was still weak:

It's very easy, from the perspective of today, with the power of hindsight, to say, Roosevelt should have been more courageous. What would it have cost him, in 1933, to get out there in public and attack Hitler openly in a powerful speech? But, back in '33-'34, the nation was locked in the Depression, and the political opposition to Roosevelt was really pretty intense. The isolationists were really gaining steam - no one wanted another war. Hindsight says, yeah, he could have done something. And who knows, it could have had a powerful effect, because Hitler was very sensitive to public opinion in this period, as was the entire Reich hierarchy. And the best evidence of this is how persistently they sought to end that mock trial [of Hitler organized by the American Jewish Congress in 1934] in New York, and how furious that made them. But we can't really appreciate the depths of fear and personal distress that existed at that time. Roosevelt's priority was to get this country back on track fiscally and economically. Anything that would put that off was to be completely avoided.

COMMENT:  History doesn't repeat itself, but the psychology of history does.  It's what we normally call human nature.  Right now Americans are, once again, worried about their jobs, their children's education, what will become of spouses and other family members if they die.  Foreign threats, brought home to us so vividly on September 11, 2001, are fading in priority.  The attacks occurred 10 years ago.

But those foreign threats are not going to recede simply because many Americans want to ignore them, or put them off.  Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his farewell address to the nation, the famous "industrial-military complex" speech, did indeed warn of the dangers of that complex, but he did so in the context of asserting the need for it.  And one reason for that need, Eisenhower said, was that new forms of warfare did not give us the luxury of time to mobilize.  (See post on China just below.)  Americans forget that most of our mobilization for World War II occurred during the war, between late 1941 and 1943.  We will not have that luxury next time.

The psychology of history is now repeating itself.   We ask questions about Roosevelt.  But in that different time, Roosevelt was able to lead the nation successfully through a world war because he had the gift of time.  Will the same questions be asked of a contemporary American president?  Will the answers be the same, or tragically different?

July 22, 2011       Permalink

ANOTHER WARNING FROM CHINA – AT 9:15 A.M. ET:  While we contemplate major cuts in defense procurement, China is forging ahead.  Let us not forget that we experienced four large military drawdowns in the 20th century, and lived to regret all of them.  From first-rate military reporter Bill Gertz, at the Washington Times:

China's military is developing electromagnetic pulse weapons that Beijing plans to use against U.S. aircraft carriers in any future conflict over Taiwan, according to an intelligence report made public on Thursday.

I guarantee you that most Americans today don't know where Taiwan is, or think it's the name of a new Korean sports car.

Portions of a National Ground Intelligence Center study on the lethal effects of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and high-powered microwave (HPM) weapons revealed that the arms are part of China's so-called "assassin's mace" arsenal - weapons that allow a technologically inferior China to defeat U.S. military forces.

EMP weapons mimic the gamma-ray pulse caused by a nuclear blast that knocks out all electronics, including computers and automobiles, over wide areas. The phenomenon was discovered in 1962 after an aboveground nuclear test in the Pacific disabled electronics in Hawaii...

..."For use against Taiwan, China could detonate at a much lower altitude (30 to 40 kilometers) ... to confine the EMP effects to Taiwan and its immediate vicinity and minimize damage to electronics on the mainland," the report said.

And...

According to the report, China's electronic weapons are part of what are called "trump card" or "assassin's mace" weapons that "are based on new technology that has been developed in high secrecy."

"Trump card would be applicable if the Chinese have developed new low-yield, possibly enhanced, EMP warheads, while assassin's mace would apply if older warheads are employed," the report said.

COMMENT:  As one of our knowledgeable readers wrote at our Angel's Corner, it takes vastly greater time to develop weapons systems in the modern era than in, say, the 1940s.  We are making a terrible mistake if we cut important defense programs to save a little money up front.  We will wind up spending much more in the future to catch up...unless the cuts prove fatal.  We've been close before.

July 22, 2011       Permalink

IS IT WORSE FOR OBAMA? – AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  Is it possible that President Obama is in even worse political shape than his numbers indicate?  Yes, according to a Democratic pollster.  From the Washington Times:

A Democratic polling firm said President Obama's already weak job-approval numbers are "worse than they appear" and he likely would lose the election if it were held today.

For the first time in a year, Mr. Obama does not lead former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in Public Policy Polling's monthly national poll on the 2012 presidential race. They are tied at 45 percent, and Mr. Obama is losing among independent voters by a margin of 49 percent to 44 percent.

Worse for Mr. Obama, PPP said, the "vast majority" of undecideds disapprove of the president's performance. The survey of registered voters was conducted July 15-17.

"There's a very good chance Barack Obama would lose if he had to stand for re-election today," said Dean Debnam, president of PPP. "This is his worst poll standing in a long time, and he really needs the economy to start turning around."

In an interview this week with a Kansas City, Mo., TV station, Mr. Obama said the election will be more about his record than the platform of the eventual Republican nominee.

"Americans understand that we didn't get into this problem overnight," Mr. Obama told KMBC-TV, one of three interviews he gave to regional TV outlets at the White House on Wednesday. "If next November they feel like I've ... been working as hard as I can and have been getting some things done to move us in the right direction, then I'll win. If they don't, then I'll lose."

COMMENT:  But Republicans should start wondering why a president who's been such an obvious failure is still in such close contention.  One reason, as we've noted here, is that his core support is fanatical, almost religious.  Obama is, after all, a cultural icon, not just for African-Americans, but for a certain kind of liberal for whom symbolism is more important than results.  The second reason is that the GOP does not yet have an obvious winner in its presidential contender ranks.  A coming televised debate, just before the Iowa straw poll, may start to thin things out and focus attention on a few potential victors. 

July 22, 2011      Permalink

"WE'RE HAVIN' A HEAT WAVE, A TROPICAL HEAT WAVE" – AT 8:39 A.M. ET:  We thank Irving Berlin for the words to our headline.  The weather people forecast 100 degrees here in New York today.  Al Gore is in his glory.  Maybe he can stand at subway entrances and hand out free thermometers as well as free DVD's of his film, "An Inconvenient Truth."

But hot weather is a time when memory is called for.  While we await the inevitable assertions that global warming is upon us, please recall that we have hot hotter days and weeks, before "climate change" was all the rage.  I recall walking through Central Park when the temperature sign on a nearby building read 104.  And let us not forget the dust bowl that struck in the Midwest and Southwest in the 1930s, adding to the economic woes of farmers.  And it wasn't many weeks ago when I was trekking through part of Manhattan during a bitter winter cold snap, one of the worst we've seen in years.

The seasons change and this will pass.  Within five months you'll see stories about the rising price of home heating oil, and the heating needs of the elderly. 

So, please stay cool.  Drink plenty of water (although it was probably contaminated by CHENEY (!!!!), and don't draw too many instant conclusions over the state of the Earth.

July 22, 2011     Permalink