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.

SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE  –  CONTINUE THE PROGRESS!

Holiday weekends are slow, but we did have another encouraging day yesterday, and we welcome our new subscribers and donators.  If we can keep this up – a combination of new subscribers and additional help from our regular subscriber base – we should finish this drive in reasonable shape.  So please participate.

But it really would be great if more of our new readers would subscribe or donate.  A subscription costs less than a candy bar – whoops, I mean alternative energy Gore bar – each week.  If you are one of our new readers, please subscribe, as you would to a favorite magazine or newspaper.  It takes funding to keep Urgent Agenda going, and you can help guarantee our future.

We are in the middle of the second week of our second subscription drive of the year.  I don't mind saying that it's critically important.  After two years of explosive growth, our subscription program slowed in our third year and has leveled off.  This must change if we are to maintain our service at our current level, and expand.  What we can do in the future will depend heavily on subscriptions and contributions.

As a subscriber or donator you become a member of our Angel's Corner, which features one of the best forums on the web, where you get a chance to write on anything you wish and see it published.  The Forum, sent by e-mail twice a week, has become our most popular feature and gets the greatest response.  We have readers with remarkable levels of expertise.

And, as a subscriber or donator, you help keep Urgent Agenda going.  We are gratified by the number of readers who tell us that this is the first place they go every day. 

So, we need subscriptions and donations.  If you like what you see, please go to the right-hand column on this page, right opposite these words.  You can do everything through PayPal.  If you don't like PayPal, alert us and we'll give you a traditional mailing address.

Only you can guarantee the future of Urgent Agenda.  Please do so.

MAY 29,  2011

DRIVE NOW, PAY LATER – AT 11:36 P.M. ET:  Better get your warm-weather travelin' in early this year.  Credit-card blues are coming for those who visit the gas pump: 

The forecast for the summer driving season: Hit the road early. Not to beat the traffic, but to beat the higher gas prices expected in mid-July.

Goldman Sachs' crystal ball is proclaiming that oil will soon soar to $135 a barrel, and likely have service stations jacking up fuel prices to $5 a gallon in New York just like the summer of 2008 that preceded the recession.

Indeed, analysts say Goldman and the other oil trading giant that also has the might to move prices, JPMorgan Chase, have already placed their energy bets for the summer. JPMorgan predicts oil hitting $130 a barrel in the coming weeks.

There has actually been some downward pressure on oil prices in recent weeks, but the financial people see that as the proverbial calm before the storm:

"Drivers try to do what they can, but they have to go almost all the places they go," says energy researcher David Greene of the Department of Energy Web site fueleconomy.gov. "There's no magic gizmo that will drastically change someone's gasoline use."

And for that reason, as well as global uncertainty, Goldman and JP analysts see a return to high oil and gas prices in the coming months. Without a significant decrease in American demand -- or a sudden desire not to commute or drive to the shore -- $5 a gallon is likely on the horizon.

COMMENT:  But remember, those high gas prices are good for you.  Why, members of the Obama administration have actually said that, and we know that they are much wiser than we are, and got high test scores and lived in better dorm rooms.  So they have to be right.

I hope the GOP comes up with an imaginative energy policy that can convince Americans that they don't have to pay five bucks a gallon forever.  This is an issue handed to Republicans on a silver platter.  It is also an issue that can mightily help Texas Governor Rick Perry if he jumps into the race, Perry being from a large energy-producing state, and someone who knows the subject. 

In the meantime, happy motoring.  Just don't look at the gas gauge.

May 29, 2011       Permalink

THOSE WHO SERVE – AT 11:41 A.M. ET:  On this Memorial Day weekend, we reflect on those who serve in the armed forces of the United States.  Retired Marine Colonel Mark F. Cancian, in the Kansas City Star, gives us some poignant facts about service today:

The Memorial Day weekend is a time when we remember the nation's shared sacrifices in war. All told since 1775, more than 1.2 million Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice in our nation's conflicts.

Over the decades, however, the shared element of this sacrifice has waned. Although Americans have been wonderfully supportive of their service members in the recent conflicts, many have also observed that, with few exceptions, the nation's elites - the politically powerful, office and rank-holders, influential, wealthy and highly educated among us - do not typically have their children at risk in today's wars.

And...

But is there is one group among our great nation's leaders and elites whose children are very much at risk. The children of those in the military itself. Many of the generals and admirals who lead our armed forces today have children who are also serving.

Indeed, studies have shown that one of the strongest indicators for whether someone will join the U.S. military today is whether they have a parent who has served. A recent government study found that more than 61 percent of the Marines serving in Iraq in 2004 had at least one parent who was or had been in the military. I saw this vividly myself during my last tour in Iraq. Half of the senior officers on our command staff had children that were in the military, many of them deployed to combat at the same time as their parent.

Military service has become a family tradition and collectively these families have formed a small "military tribe" within our broader society.

And...

I hope that on this Memorial Day we can for a moment think about our military tribe. Families that at their core are not much different from other American families, the nation entrusts them with its safety and security and its future as a free people. They comprise less than 1 percent of our citizenry but bear disproportionately the burden of sacrifice.

Very well said. 

When I was much younger, it was expected that most young men would serve at least some time in the military.  We were still under the influence of the great World War II generation.  We had learned the lessons of that war, especially the lesson of unpreparedness.  But since the 1960s, and especially since the end of the draft in 1973, most Americans have grown more and more distant from direct participation in national defense.  Today, only a small number of families send someone to military service.  I'll bet that most Americans don't know a soldier, or even a soldier's family.  It is an unhealthy situation.

We are seeing small, but encouraging, signs of change.  Three Ivy League colleges – Harvard, Yale, and Columbia – have recently welcomed back ROTC units.  We hope this is the start of a cultural shift, possibly caused by generational change, that will bring Americans closer to those who defend them. 

May 29, 2011         Permalink

McCAIN ON LIBYA – AT 11:26 A.M. ET:  Libya is rapidly becoming the forgotten war.  After some initial bravado and some intermittent chest thumping, the Obama administration let the drive to topple Gadhafi go onto a "to do next year" list.  John McCain is critical, warning that the delay in bringing down the Libyan government can produce the worst possible outcome – the taking over of the rebel forces by extremist elements:

Sen. John McCain on Sunday said Libyan civilians are dying in large part because the Obama administration has refused to commit the full weight of the nation’s military to the fight to overthrow strongman Col. Moammar Gadhafi.

“This thing could have been over a long time ago,” Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican who was the party’s 2008 presidential nominee, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

He said he was happy to see President Obama’s position on Libya “gradually changing,” evidenced by the fact that U.S. forces remain involved in the effort, despite Mr. Obama’s earlier declaration that the nation’s military commitment would be short-lived.

Mr. McCain also said the continued standoff in Libya could allow extremists, such as al Qaeda leaders, to take control of rebel forces. A quicker end to the fighting, which must include the removal of Col. Gadhafi from power, Mr. McCain said, would make it less likely that terrorists would gain a foothold in Libya.

COMMENT:  This last point is the most important.  Even Tom Friedman of The New York Times is acknowledging that the Egyptian revolution stands a good chance of going off the rails and being lost to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Extremist elements are very active in Libya, especially in the eastern areas held by the rebels, and we could wind up with a situation worse than Gadhafi remaining in power.

Remember, most revolutions fail.  In the Mideast, they fail spectacularly.

May 29, 2011      Permalink

WHERE OBAMA STANDS – AT 10:55 A.M. ET:  Scott Rasmussen has done a sophisticated study of the current state of the electorate.  It finds Obama ahead, but vulnerable:

In Democratic-leaning New Jersey, both home state Governor Chris Christie and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney are within single digits of President Obama in hypothetical 2012 election match-ups...

...Nationally, the president holds a 43% to 35% lead over the first-term Republican governor among Likely U.S. Voters...

...Among all likely voters nationwide, Obama bests Romney 45% to 40%. In every matchup tested so far this year, the president’s national support has stayed between 42% and 49%.

Yes, Obama is ahead.  But he's stagnated in the mid-forties, not the place to be for an incumbent president.  Remember, Obama is essentially campaigning every day.  The Republicans haven't yet picked their candidate.  Rasmussen cautions:

All early polling for the 2012 election should be viewed with caution given the potential for change over the next year-and-a-half. “If the economy improves dramatically over the next year-and-a-half, the president will be virtually impossible to beat,” notes Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. “However, if there is a double-dip recession, it will be hard for the Republicans to lose. If the economy shows little substantive change, the race could be very competitive.”

Let me add, however, that the role of the media, which is virtually impossible to predict by polling, will again be a major factor.  The news is filtered through the lens of the press, and that filter is pro-Obama.  Some pro-Obama outlets can make 10% unemployment look like an economic boom.

It's early.  The polls will fluctuate, sometimes wildly.  But a president who is only at 45% against Mitt Romney is beatable.

May 29, 2011     Permalink

MAY 28,  2011

SHREWD OBSERVATION – AT 10:53 P.M. ET:  Michael Barone, one of our best political analysts, is amused that journalists are shocked, shocked, by the latest economic statistics...and indeed they've been shocked, shocked, ever since Barack Obama took office.  But how much longer can they be shocked?

Unexpectedly!

As megablogger Glenn Reynolds, aka Instapundit, has noted with amusement, the word "unexpectedly" or variants thereon keep cropping up in mainstream media stories about the economy.

"New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly climbed," reported CNBC.com May 25.

"Personal consumption fell," Business Insider reported the same day, "when it was expected to rise."

"Durable goods declined 3.6 percent last month," Reuters reported May 25, "worse than economists' expectations."

"Previously owned home sales unexpectedly fall," headlined Bloomberg News May 19.

Shock, shock.

Which raises some questions. As Instapundit reader Gordon Stewart, quoted by Reynolds on May 17, put it, "How many times in a row can something happen unexpectedly before the experts start to, you know, expect it? At some point, shouldn't they be required to state the foundation for their expectations?"

One answer is that many in the mainstream media have been cheerleading for Barack Obama. They and he both naturally hope for a strong economic recovery. After all, Obama can't keep blaming the economic doldrums on George W. Bush forever.

And...

It's obviously going to be hard to achieve the unacknowledged goal of many mainstream journalists -- the president's re-election -- if the economic slump continues. So they characterize economic setbacks as unexpected, with the implication that there's still every reason to believe that, in Herbert Hoover's phrase, prosperity is just around the corner.

And...

Obama and his policymakers told the country that we would recover from the deep recession by vastly increasing government spending and borrowing. We did that with the stimulus package, with the budget passed in 2009 back when congressional Democrats actually voted on budgets, and with the vast increases scheduled to come (despite the administration's gaming of the Congressional Budget Office scoring process) from Obamacare.

All of this has inspired something like a hiring strike among entrepreneurs and small-business owners. Employers aren't creating any more jobs than they were during the darkest days of the recession; unemployment has dropped slowly because they just aren't laying off as many employees as they did then.

In the meantime, many potential job seekers have left the labor market. If they re-enter and look for jobs, the unemployment rate will stay steady or ebb only slowly.

We tend to hire presidents who we think can foresee the future effect of their policies. No one does so perfectly. But if the best sympathetic observers can say about the results is that they are "unexpected," voters may decide someone else can do better.

From Barone's pen to you-know-whose ears.  The economy will be the key to next year's election – that and the quality of the GOP nominee.  We could be in a depression, but, if the GOP nominates a clunker, Obama would still win. 

Although not much political news is being made this weekend, there is great political activity, with GOP candidates gladhanding all over the country.  Watch things start to heat up in the coming weeks, as the Republican race becomes more spirited, and possibly more vicious.

Then we'll receive more "unexpected" economic news.  And someone will figure out a way to blame BUSH (!!).

May 28, 2011       Permalink

A LITTLE SHOW BIZ CAN'T HURT – AT 10:55 A.M. ET:  That's something Ronald Reagan always understood.  The Republican Party, not exacting the most exciting institution around, was, just a few weeks ago, heading into a dull primary season, and generating little excitement.  But things have changed, as Fox reports:

Just when the GOP 2012 presidential field appeared fully formed, a few Republican stars are sending strong signals that they might throw their hats into the ring.

After months of resisting calls to join the contest, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Friday he would consider it. That could reshape the GOP field, adding a sitting governor who has never lost an election.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin also sent a jolt through the party with the announcement of a campaign-style bus tour along the East Coast, the latest possible contender to stand up since Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels announced last weekend that he would not run.

And former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is heading to New Hampshire next week, further stirring speculation that he will jump into the still-gelling field.

Add Michelle Bachmann, who's clearly aiming to get in.

Perry, the longest serving governor in Texas history, would bring conservative bona fides, a proven fundraising record and a fresh voice. Even as Perry's closest advisers say he has no intention of getting in the race, he has methodically raised his profile, fanning interest.

And there is now some serious buzz that Paul Ryan may be reconsidering his "no," which could be turned into a "yes." 

Keep it going.  Keep it interesting.  Keep it competitive. 

And demand that Marco Rubio run.  He is the one candidate with the rhetorical skills to take on Obama.

A little political theater always helps.

May 28, 2011       Permalink

AGAIN? – AT 10:34 A.M. ET:  The president of the United States does not know history.  Indeed, given the buildup he received as the greatest brain in the political history of the Universe – he doesn't know much at all.  And once again he's committed a gaffe:

WARSAW — President Obama held up Poland as a model for Arab nations undergoing political upheaval on Saturday, saying its peaceful overthrow of Communism provided lessons for Tunisia and other countries struggling with the chaotic aftermath of popular revolts.

Mr. Obama, wrapping up a six-day trip to Europe with a stop in this staunch American ally, paid tribute to the elders of the Solidarity movement, which led the uprising in Poland, as well as young activists just back from Tunisia, where they offered advice based on Poland’s experience.

“Poland has navigated that process as well as any country in recent history,” Mr. Obama said at a meeting that included Solidarity leaders, though not Lech Walesa, who was out of the country. The president said he wanted “all states undergoing similar experiences to learn from Poland.”

COMMENT:  It's perfectly fine to praise the Polish example, but conditions in the Arab world are so different that the comparison collapses almost immediately.  Poland is in Europe, which has at least a passable democratic tradition.  There is almost no democratic tradition in the Arab world.  While Poland has a religious history tied to the Catholic Church, that institution has gone through dramatic change and reform in recent decades.  Militant Islam, which is growing in the Mideast, is still stuck in its past.  Poland became free at least in part because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, under pressure from the Reagan-Thatcher-John Paul II coalition.  No such condition exists in the Mideast.

Obama committed a similar gaffe recently when he compared the Israel-Palestinian conflict to the Irish dispute with Britain.  Some commentators gently pointed out that the Irish never intended to destroy Britain, whereas a good part of the Palestinian movement is committed to the destruction of Israel.

The problem with people who speak well is that they're often tempted to speak again, when silence might be a wiser alternative.  For this president, given the mess created by his speech designed to pre-empt the Israeli prime minister last week, silence might become the smart weapon of choice.

Oh, by the way, the above quote is from The New York Times, so in the tank for Obama that it whitewashed the reason that Lech Walesa is not meeting the president.  It's not because he's out of the country.  Walesa is snubbing Obama, as reported by AFP:

Lech Walesa, Poland's Solidarity-era legend, ex-president and 1983 Nobel Peace Prize winner said Friday he would not accept an invitation to meet with fellow Nobel winner US President Barack Obama.

"It's difficult to tell journalists what you'd like to say to the president of a superpower. This time I won't tell him, I won't meet him, it doesn't suit me," Walesa told Poland's public broadcaster TVP.

Obama is due to arrive in Poland later Friday after the G8 summit in France.

Walesa was originally scheduled to meet Obama Saturday along with other key figures in Poland's post-1989 transition from communism to democracy.

According to sources close to Walesa, he was expecting a personal invitation from Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 shortly after taking office.

COMMENT:  This is a prime example of why The Times is no longer trusted by a large segment of the population.

May 28, 2011       Permalink 

UNBELIEVABLE – AND DANGEROUS – AT 10:12 A.M. ET:  It is hard to believe this is happening in a modern, democratic country (and a country whose culture I dearly love):

Italian government officials have accused the country's top seismologist of manslaughter, after failing to predict a natural disaster that struck Italy in 2009, a massive devastating earthquake that killed 308 people.

A shocked spokesman for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) likened the accusations to a witch hunt.

"It has a medieval flavor to it -- like witches are being put on trial," the stunned spokesman told FoxNews.com.

Enzo Boschi, the president of Italy's National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology (INGV), will face trial along with six other scientists and technicians, after failing to predict the future and the impending disaster.

Earthquakes are, of course, nearly impossible to predict, seismologists say. In fact, according to the website for the USGS, no major quake has ever been predicted successfully.

"Neither the USGS nor Caltech nor any other scientists have ever predicted a major earthquake," reads a statement posted on the USGS website. "They do not know how, and they do not expect to know how any time in the foreseeable future."

COMMENT:  This is pure madness.  It reflects an attempt to find someone to blame.  Since earthquakes can't be predicted with any precision, the government might look at building codes, which often are responsible for permitting catastrophic damage during a quake. 

This is dangerous stuff.  It's a kind of political correctness.  And we shouldn't be self-righteous about it.  In some of our own colleges and universities, both students and faculty have been destroyed by disciplinary action based on the latest political fad or trendy theory. 

We would hope that this persecution of scientists will be cut short by the Italian legal system.

May 28, 2011    Permalink