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.

MAY 5,  2011

WHAT A DISGRACE – AT 9:25 P.M. ET:  This is a heartbreaking story, but one that should raise the caution flag when someone announces that we need to spend more money on education.

DETROIT (WWJ) – According to a new report, 47 percent of Detroiters are ”functionally illiterate.” The alarming new statistics were released by the Detroit Regional Workforce Fund on Wednesday.

WWJ Newsradio 950 spoke with the Fund’s Director, Karen Tyler-Ruiz, who explained exactly what this means.

“Not able to fill out basic forms, for getting a job — those types of basic everyday (things). Reading a prescription; what’s on the bottle, how many you should take… just your basic everyday tasks,” she said.

“I don’t really know how they get by, but they do. Are they getting by well? Well, that’s another question,” Tyler-Ruiz said.

Some of the Detroit suburbs also have high numbers of functionally illiterate: 34 percent in Pontiac and 24 percent in Southfield.

“For other major urban areas, we are a little bit on the high side… We compare, slightly higher, to Washington D.C.’s urban population, in certain ZIP codes in Washington D.C. and in Cleveland,” she said.

Tyler-Ruiz said only 10 percent of those who can’t read have gotten any help to resolve it.

The report will be used to provide better training for local workers. 

COMMENT:  I'm glad they're getting better training.  But isn't there something called a school system?  And where were the parents of these illiterates as they were growing up?

Why don't I ever read these stories about Asian-American communities?

What we really need is far better education reporting that will get to the bottom of these colossal failures.  The problem is, such reporting will be politically incorrect, and not good for journalism careers.  So it will probably never be done.

But you can be sure that the cry for "more money" will rise loudly from Detroit's political class and the teachers' unions.

May 5, 2011       Permalink

UNBELIEVABLE – AT 9:03 P.M. ET:   From Fox:

Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism will bestow its highest honor to Al Jazeera English, the university announced Wednesday.

The Columbia Journalism Award is given annually during the school's commencement to recognize an individual or organization for "singular journalism in the public interest," according to a press release. It will mark only the second time that the award is being given to an organization.

"Al Jazeera English has performed a great service in bringing the English-speaking world in-depth coverage of the turmoil in the Middle East," said Dean Nicholas Lemann. "We salute its determination to get to the heart of a complicated story unfolding in countries where news has historically been difficult to cover."

The school’s faculty, which selects the awardees, voted for Al Jazeera English for the "overall depth and quality of its peerless coverage of the ongoing protests in the Middle East," the release continued. Al Antsey, managing editor of Al Jazeera English, will accept the award and address the school's graduating class of 2011 on May 18.

Elizabeth Fishman, the school's associate dean of communications, told FoxNews.com the selection was made during a private faculty meeting. Past winners of the Columbia Journalism Award, which was established in 1958, include Walter Cronkite and Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham. The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour was the first outlet to win the award in 1993.

COMMENT:  That is my alma mater, and it's not the first time I've been embarrassed by it.  Al Jazeera is largely a function of a foreign government, Qatar, which is not even a democracy.  It has probably improved in recent years, and has done some good coverage of the upheavals in Arab countries.  But it has a pretty bad history of anti-Americanism, not to mention anti-Israelism, and was roundly denounced by Secretary Rumsfeld for its coverage of the Iraq war.  (That may be one reason it got the award.)  It is not worthy of this prize.  It would have to prove itself over another, say, ten years, before being in that league.

But Columbia is to the left, and the school probably thinks it is acting nobly.  The journalism school has drifted further and further left over the years.  Its magazine program is headed by the former editor and publisher of The Nation, which tells you something.  Its former dean was Bill Moyers's partner, which tells you the same thing. 

I'm embarrassed again.

May 5, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 8:46 P.M. ET:

From USA Today:  The Department of Justice has sent a letter to NCAA President Mark Emmert asking why the association does not have a major-college football playoff and it wants to know if Emmert believes some aspects of the Bowl Championship Series system do not serve the interests of fans, schools and players.

Your tax dollars at work.  I have sent to the Department of Justice a copy of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary with the word "priorities" circled, for their contemplation. 

May 5, 2011       Permalink

CREDIT TO THE WASHINGTON POST – AT 9:41 A.M. ET:  We've written here before about how the Washington Post's editorial page shines in comparison to that of the dreary, propagandistic New York Times.  The Post is a liberal paper and I often disagree with its editorials.  But they are well written, thoughtful, and sane.  And the Post understands that liberalism doesn't have to mean a knee-jerk, or just jerk, reaction to any military operation.

In the last few days, following the bin Laden raid, we've seen the political left, especially in Europe, reorganize again, as it reorganizes after every major event, and go back to its standard leftist lines and sneering anti-Americanism.  The usual cast of Europeans and left-leaning Brits, now including the Archbishop of Cantebury, has taken to expressing anguish over the legality and morality of the raid.  We are being lectured by our self-proclaimed superiors. 

The Washington Post, to its enormous credit, will have none of it, as the paper makes clear in a superb editorial published this morning:

SOME ARE questioning the legality of the raid in Pakistan that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden. Was it lawful for a team of Navy SEALs to launch a mission in Abbottabad without permission from Pakistani leaders? Did they comply with international strictures when they killed the al-Qaeda leader rather than capturing him and bringing him before a court of law?

In a word: yes.

Right on, WaPo.  For liberals, you've got guts.

Absent a surrender, there is no question that U.S. forces would have been entitled to shoot him on sight had they encountered him on an Afghan battlefield. But that is not where the terrorist leader spent his time. After lengthy and intricate intelligence-gathering, the Obama administration tracked him to a heavily secured mansion in a city outside Islamabad populated by military officers and the country’s elite military academy. With suspicions high that Osama bin Laden enjoyed some semblance of official protection, the Obama administration rightly decided to proceed without notifying Pakistan.

Correct again.

Much has been made of the disclosure that Osama bin Laden was unarmed, but this, too, is irrelevant in determining whether the operation was lawful. The SEALs entered the compound on a war footing, in the middle of the night, prepared to encounter hostile fire in what they believed to be the enemy leader’s hideout. They reported that they became embroiled in a firefight once inside; they had no way of knowing whether Osama bin Laden himself was armed. Even if he had signaled surrender, there is no reason to believe that danger had evaporated.

That is pure common sense, often lacking in the "international law" experts who are peppering the pages of newspapers with their learned opinions.

It is easy in the light of day to second-guess decisions made in the heat of war. It is particularly easy for those who refuse to acknowledge that war in the first place. Based on information released by the administration, the covert military operation that brought down the most wanted terrorist in the world appears to have been gutsy and well executed. It was also lawful.

COMMENT:  Cheers to the Washington Post, whose editorial will probably produce severe biological trauma in faculty lounges throughout the nation, and cafes where Euro types meet.  Paramedics are standing by.  Have insurance cards ready. 

The conflict with terror organizations is ongoing.  Bin laden was a major soldier in that conflict.  He was a military planner, and a legitimate target.

We did good.

May 5, 2011       Permalink

ECONOMIC STUNNER – AT 9:01 A.M. ET:  Are we headed for a double-dip recession?  That possibility grew greater today with the release of new, tremendously discouraging job figures that raise serious doubts about the "recovery."  From Bloomberg:

The number of claims for U.S. unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week, pushed up by auto-plant shutdowns and other unusual events that seasonal variations failed to take into account, the Labor Department said.

Applications for jobless benefits jumped by 43,000 to 474,000 in the week ended April 30, the most since August, Labor Department figures showed today. A spring break holiday in New York, a new emergency benefits program in Oregon and auto shutdowns caused by the disaster in Japan were the main reasons for the surge, a Labor Department spokesman said as the data was released to the press.

Even before last week, claims had drifted up, raising concern the improvement in the labor market has stalled. Employers added 185,000 workers to payrolls in April, fewer than in the prior month, and the unemployment rate held at 8.8 percent, economists project a Labor Department report to show tomorrow.

“April seems to have shown a little bit of a slowdown,” Thomas Simons, an economist at Jefferies Group Inc. in New York, said before the report. “We haven’t seen as rapid an improvement in the labor market as we’ve seen in previous months.”

And...

Economists forecast 410,000 claims, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey. Forecasts ranged from 395,000 to 450,000 in the survey of 46 economists. The Labor Department revised the prior week’s figure up to 431,000 from an initially reported 429,000.

COMMENT:  Please note that the actual number of claims exceeded even the most pessimistic prediction among economists. 

Most political pundits are saying that the glow from the bin Laden operation will soon fade, and that Obama will be left with the economy as the main issue in 2012.  If today's report reflects another downward trend, the president will be in serious trouble very quickly, saved, if he is to be saved, only by the incompetence of the Republican Party.

Stand by.  It's going to be a bumpy campaign.

May 5, 2011       Permalink

CAMPAIGN STARTS TONIGHT – AT 8:49 A.M. ET:  The 2012 presidential campaign essentially starts tonight, with the first debate among GOP contenders, in South Carolina.  Unfortunately, a good part of the field is staying home, making for an anemic, unimpressive start, as WaPo points out:

Normally, the first debate of the presidential primary season serves as a starting gun. The one that will take place on Thursday night could sound more like a distress call.

Consider the contrast with this very week four years ago, when a field of 10 Republican contenders lined up for the first time, onstage at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. It included four former governors, two sitting senators, three members of the House and a former New York City mayor who had become something of a national hero for his leadership in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The group that assembles for the Fox News-South Carolina GOP debate in Greenville, S.C., on Thursday will be half the size — and distinguished more by who isn’t there than by who is. Of the presumed top-tier candidates and most-buzzed-about names, only former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty has agreed to show up.

That fact alone speaks to the turbulence and uncertainty of a political party known for the orderly way in which it usually picks its nominee, with its all-but-predetermined outcome.

With the strongest possible contenders holding back — not just from debating, but also from gearing up their campaign operations — a queasiness is setting in among Republicans about whether their field will be strong enough to produce a standard-bearer who can beat an incumbent.

COMMENT:  No Romney tonight.  No Huck, no Sarah, no Michelle, no Mitch Daniels or Newt, and, of course, no Marco Rubio.  We get Pawlenty, but we also get Herman Cain of Godfather Pizza, the terminally unbalanced Ron Paul, some former governor of New Mexico named Johnson, and Rick Santorum.

We yearn for the A-team.  In fact, we yearn for there to be an A-team.  Look, we'll even take a debate with the B- or C-team.  But tonight's debate doesn't have much anticipation factor.  While we'll take a peek, the insignificance of the event is underwhelming.

May 5, 2011       Permalink

AND BUSH IS RIGHT – AT 8:26 A.M. ET:  President Obama will be at Ground Zero in New York today, which for us New Yorkers means monumental traffic jams.  One person not coming is former President George W. Bush.  The New York Daily News claims to know the reason why:

WASHINGTON - George W. Bush won't be at Ground Zero with President Obama Thursday in part because he feels his team is getting short shrift in the decade-long manhunt for Osama Bin Laden.

"[Bush] viewed this as an Obama victory lap," a highly-placed source told the Daily News Wednesday.

Bush's visit to the rubble after the 9/11 attacks was the emotional high point of his presidency, but associates say the invitation to return with his successor was a non-starter.

"He doesn't feel personally snubbed and appreciates the invitation, but Obama's claiming all the credit and a lot of other people deserve some of it," the source added.

"Obama gave no credit whatsoever to the intelligence infrastructure the Bush administration set up that is being hailed from the left and right as setting in motion the operation that got Bin Laden. It rubbed Bush the wrong way."

Bush spokesman David Sherzer said Bush "appreciated the invite, but has chosen in his post-presidency to remain largely out of the spotlight."

Associates familiar with his thinking say Bush does not believe Obama or his handlers wanted to exploit his presence. But the tag-team idea "was for the benefit of Obama, and Obama withheld credit from people Bush believes deserved it," a source said.

COMMENT:  Obama has never been a class act, and he should have praised President Bush's efforts, and the efforts of the Bush team, in his initial announcement Sunday night.  I can understand Bush's declining the invite.

Maybe it's better.  Bush would have probably gotten bigger applause than Obama from the police, firefighters and military people who'll be there today, creating what the Brits call a bit of bother. 

One Urgent Agenda reader, in a post at our Angel's Corner last night, theorized that Bush feared Obama might say something insulting today.  Recall that Obama invited Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to Obama's recent White House budget speech, then proceeded to disparage Ryan's efforts in the congressman's presence.  And yes, I could easily see Obama making a speech at Ground Zero today, in Bush's presence, and disparaging some of Bush's tactics in the war on terror.

At any rate, we get only one president today, and that will be enough.

May 5, 2011     Permalink

MAY 4,  2011

WHAT'S IN A NAME? – AT 8:11 P.M. ET:   A number of spokesmen for native American groups have vigorously denounced the use of the code name "Geronimo" for Osama bin Laden:

(Reuters) - The reported use of "Geronimo" as a codeword in the operation that led to Osama bin Laden's killing has angered some native Americans and threatens to become an embarrassment for the Obama administration.

Geronimo was an Apache warrior leader who fought for tribal lands against U.S. and Mexican forces in the 19th century and who, like bin Laden, evaded capture for many years. He was held as a U.S. prisoner of war from the time he was captured in 1886 until his death in 1909.

COMMENT:  As readers know, we're not very high on political correctness here, but in this case the complainers are correct.  Geronimo has, for years, been seen not as an enemy but as a native American warrior, and was honored by act of Congress a few years ago.  You'd think someone would have shown some common sense in avoiding the use of the name to identify an international terrorist.  "Geronimo" has been used in American military parlance before, as the war cry shouted by paratroopers as they jumped from their aircraft during World War II. 

What's amazing is that among all these Obamans, who are always chanting about the glories of multiculturalism, there was not one who spoke up and realized the potential for embarrassment.

I mean, they could have codenamed him "Jane Fonda."

May 4, 2011       Permalink

NO PHOTOS – AT 7:54 P.M. ET:  President Obama has decided against releasing any death photos of Osama bin Laden.  His stated logic is that we know bin Laden is dead, and the photos could incite violence.

There is no right or wrong here.  Arguments could be made each way.  On the one hand, a poll shows most Americans want the photos released, and they could provide some evidence that death actually occurred.  On the other, anyone who believes that this whole thing is a hoax would simply say that the pictures were doctored. 

I was watching Fouad Ajami on CNN earlier, who weighed in by agreeing with Obama, saying that we should do what suits us, and not worry so much about the rest of the world – you know, "world opinion."  I have great regard for Ajami, who has a history of getting things right, and I'd lean in his direction.

As for "proof," the only absolute proof we had was sent, prematurely, to the bottom of the sea, out of "respect" for Muslim traditions.  It turns out that virtually every Muslim "scholar" who's spoken on the subject rejects what we did.  Big surprise there.  We should have kept the body long enough for international inspection and full chemical tests.

What can be done for "proof" now, without someone yelling that it's fake?  I have this idea:  Let President Obama challenge Osama bin Laden, if he is still alive, to make a TV tape, hold up a newspaper from the day he makes the tape, make comments showing he's aware of events after his announced death, and let the tape be made in closeup, so the world's governments, using face recognition technology, can confirm that it is truly bin Laden.  And let his voice then be "voice printed" and compared with known bin Laden tapes.  That should do it, except for the most insane or corrupt of people and governments. 

Of course, that won't happen because bin Laden is dead.  The fact that the White House has royally botched the aftermath of the raid does not change the basic fact.  If bin Laden were not dead, I guarantee that some news organization, or organizations, would have already been contacted covertly by military people outraged over the misuse of their unit's name and prestige.  A conspiracy to fake something like this inevitably would involve hundreds or thousands of people, all of whom would be willing to remain silent.  It's nonsense.

May 4, 2011       Permalink

THE 48-HOUR RULE STANDS! – AT 9:47 A.M. ET:  Yesterday I mentioned my 48-hour rule, which holds that it takes 48 hours for the left, especially the international left, to reorganize after a major event and start spouting its usual stuff.  I'm proud to report that the rule stands.  The left was already moving yesterday.  From Reuters:

The killing of Osama bin Laden when he was unarmed has raised concerns the United States may have gone too far in acting as policeman, judge and executioner of the world's most wanted man...

...Former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt told German TV the operation could have incalculable consequences in the Arab world at a time of unrest there.

"It was quite clearly a violation of international law."

Perhaps Herr Schmidt might examine his own country's vigorous trade with Iran, despite international sanctions.  In fact, he might examine his country's history.

It was a view echoed by high-profile Australian human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson.

"It's not justice. It's a perversion of the term. Justice means taking someone to court, finding them guilty upon evidence and sentencing them," Robertson told Australian Broadcasting Corp television from London.

"This man has been subject to summary execution, and what is now appearing after a good deal of disinformation from the White House is it may well have been a cold-blooded assassination."

Robertson said bin Laden should have stood trial, just as World War Two Nazis were tried at Nuremburg or former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic was put on trial at the war crimes tribunal in The Hague after his arrest in 2001.

Seems to me the Nazis tried at Nuremburg were captured after the war was over.  Did you hear anyone on bin Laden's side declare a cease-fire?  This is dry rot.

Gert-Jan Knoops, a Dutch-based international law specialist, said bin Laden should have been arrested and extradited to the United States. "The Americans say they are at war with terrorism and can take out their opponents on the battlefield," Knoops said. "But in a strictly formal sense, this argument does not stand up."

A senior Muslim cleric in New Delhi, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, said US troops could have easily captured bin Laden.

"America is promoting jungle rule everywhere, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan or Libya. People have remained silent for long but now it has crossed all limits."

And of course, right here in the United States, our own beloved leftists are back to their never-changing agenda.  If the world exists for another 500 years, they'll be saying the same thing.  Why here's leftist suprema Katrina Vanden Heuvel, who runs the fringe left Nation magazine, giving us her wisdom in The Washington Post:

Now, with bin Laden buried at sea, it is time to end the “global war on terror” we have lived with for a decade. It is time to stop defining the post-Sept. 11 struggle against stateless terrorists as “war.” Framing the fight against terror as a war was a conscious decision made by President Bush, Karl Rove and others in those first days after Sept. 11 — a decision that destroyed the unity President Obama reminded us of in his address. 

I don't recall the destruction of that unity based on the "war" theme.  Do you?

Today it is time not only to end the use of the term “war on terror,” but to end the war itself.

It is time to bring our troops home.

Which, of course, is exactly what old Katrina was saying before bin Laden had his misfortune.

May 4, 2011       Permalink

IS OBAMA UP? – AT 9:14 A.M. ET:  The New York Times, in ecstasy, reports that President Obama is suddenly riding high in the polls:

Support for President Obama has risen sharply following the killing of Osama bin Laden by American military forces in Pakistan, with a majority now approving of his overall job performance, as well as his handling of foreign policy, the war in Afghanistan and the threat of terrorism, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The glow of national pride seemed to rise above partisan politics, as support for the president rose significantly among both Republicans and independents. In all, 57 percent said they now approved of the president’s job performance, up from 46 percent last month.

Not so fast, Manhattan West Siders.  It turns out that the poll was conducted among only 532 adults, not even registered voters.

By contrast, Scott Rasmussen is reporting very little bounce for the president.  He polls among likely voters, where approval for the president, even after the bin Laden bounce, is, in Rasmussen's poll, at 48%.

The numbers will probably be all over the place for a time, but will settle down.  As we've noted here in previous posts, military victories do not necessarily translate into political triumphs, unless they occur very close to an election.  Our election is a year and a half away.

May 4, 2011       Permalink

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT – AT 8:49 A.M. ET:  If you want to know why the "Arab street" thinks the way it does, get this report from one of the most important Arab outlets, Al Arabiya, which I think translates roughly as "It's America's fault":

Senior Pakistani security officials said Osama bin Laden’s daughter had confirmed her father was captured alive and shot dead by the US Special Forces during the first few minutes of the operation carried out at the huge compound in Bilal Town, Abbottabad.

Besides recovering four bullet-riddled bodies from the compound, Pakistani security agencies also arrested two women and six children, aged between 2 and 12 years, after American forces flew toward Afghanistan. Some reports suggest 16 people, including women and children, were arrested from the house, most of them Arab nationals.

And...

The official said a 12-year-old daughter of bin Laden was among the six children rescued from the three-storey compound.

The daughter has reportedly told her Pakistani investigators that the US forces captured her father alive but shot him dead in front of family members.

According to sources, Bin Laden was staying on the ground floor of the house and was dragged on the floor to the helicopter after being shot dead by US commandos.

There were conflicting reports about the second person the US forces took along with them. Some Pakistani officials say it was one of Bin Laden’s sons injured by the US commandos and thrown onto a separate military chopper; others say he was killed in the operation and it was only his dead body that they took along.

COMMENT:  Watch how quickly this "narrative" spreads.  We are very naive about foreign propaganda, especially in the Muslim world. 

It is highly unlikely that the Seals captured bin Laden alive and then executed him in front of witnesses.  But one can expect members of bin Laden's family to advance their own story. 

Apparently there is video of the raid.  We may have to release it.  Among other claims being made is this one:

“Not a single bullet was fired from the compound at the US forces and their choppers. Their chopper developed some technical fault and crashed and the wreckage was left on the spot,” a well-informed official explained.

We were told there was a firefight.  And this:

Security officials said they did not recover any arms and explosives during their detailed search of the compound on Monday and Tuesday. Also, they said, it was a simple house comprising 13 rooms, six on the ground floor and the remaining on the first and second floors.

No arms around the world's most wanted man?  Come on. 

We have some information work of our own to do.

May 4, 2011       Permalink

THE MESS – AT 8:38 A.M. ET:  While the Obama administration takes deep bows over the killing of Osama bin Laden, it's become clear that it's the American military that deserves virtually all the credit, with the administration messing up the aftermath big time. 

Newspapers around the world are ridiculing the contradictory statements that have come from Washington since the operation.  Even generally pro-American papers like London's Telegraph have raised eyebrows.

And now there is apparently a fierce controversy over whether to release photos of the dead terrorist to satisfy at least some of those who are doubting the story:

President Obama is increasingly doubtful that there's a compelling reason to release a photograph of Osama bin Laden's corpse, ABC News has learned.

There don't seem to be many skeptics of bin Laden's death in the Muslim world, with bin Laden's wife having survived the attack to identify bin Laden's death both to the Navy SEALs and Pakistani authorities.

Meanwhile, sources say, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are advising the president about concerns at the Pentagon and State Department that releasing a photograph could prompt a backlash against the US for killing bin Laden where one does not seem to currently exist.

The internal debate at the White House is then informed by this question: why are we releasing this photograph if no one seems to really doubt his death and releasing it could cause more harm than good?

US official: "The only skeptics are extremists and they wouldn't be convinced by a photograph anyway. So the president has to weigh the potential negatives and they're huge, there's a tremendous risk of the photo becoming a rallying cry for attacks against US soldiers, government personnel, and Americans in general."

COMMENT:  There's some wisdom to that argument.  But surely the aftermath could have been better planned by officials paid to handle diplomatic and information issues.  When you can't get your story straight, journalists will pounce and skeptical people, especially in the Mideast, will wonder. 

The reasoning in Washington seems to change by the hour, and we'll try to keep up with it.

May 4, 2011     Permalink