FRIDAY,  AUGUST 14,  2009

STILL MISSING, AFTER ALL THESE DAYS - AT 11:13 P.M. ET - Many readers are probably following, off and on, the mystery of the Russian-manned cargo ship that disappeared last month in the Atlantic, some time after reporting that it been attacked in Swedish waters by thugs who boarded, tied up the crew, then left.  It was all very strange since Swedish waters aren't exactly infested by pirates.

The ship was officially carrying timber, but now there are all kinds of rumors, none verified, that there may be some issue of drugs, or even a commercial dispute.  The ship's official destination was Algeria.

The mystery is fascinating in itself, but it also teaches a lesson:  Ships are vulnerable, and, in the vast oceans, even with all kinds of electronic surveillance and communications, ships can disappear or be hijacked.  How difficult would it be for a fanatical, suicidal rogue group to capture a ship and slip a nuclear weapon on board, then sail it into an American port?  It would be a challenge, but it could probably be done, and we know that al Qaeda is seeking weapons of mass destruction.

The disappearance of this ship, the Arctic Sea, should wake us up, but we wonder whether some elements in Washington are capable of being woken up.

August 14, 2009   Permalink

SARAH - AT 7:37 P.M. ET:  We've had our criticisms of Sarah Palin here, and the level of preparation she brought to the last presidential campaign.  But in the debate over health care, using her Facebook page, she's had some of the most thoughtful commentary I've seen.  Consider this comment on the "end-of-life counseling" provision, now apparently dropped from the Senate version of the "reform" bill:

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?”

COMMENT:  Very well argued, and more substantive than any other comment I've seen on the issue.

Now, a caveat:  I cannot guarantee that Sarah Palin actually wrote that.  She may be using a ghostwriter.  If she did write it, though, then she has taken to heart the advice given to her by political pros - to study the issues in detail and then comment on them.

It won't be difficult to find out if she's real or ghosted.  When she starts doing interviews it will be Sarah on camera alone.  No ghosts.  Also, if her website starts showing different writing styles, we'll know the ghosts are getting their checks.

It's intriguing, and we root for her.

August 14, 2009   Permalink

SANITY ERUPTS - AT 5:24 P.M. ET:  Reader Chris Corbett alerts us to this ray of sanity, something rare in Washington:

Aug. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate should abandon efforts to pass legislation curbing greenhouse-gas emissions this year and concentrate on a narrower bill to require use of renewable energy, four Democratic lawmakers say.

“The problem of doing both of them together is that it becomes too big of a lift,” Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas said in an interview last week. “I see the cap-and-trade being a real problem.”

COMMENT:  There may some light at the end of this global-warming tunnel.  Giving legislators time to consider legislation, hear from constituents and experts, and consider alternatives, can, as we've seen in the last 60 days, have a very positive effect.

Much of the climate-change legislation before Congress is based on trendy "science" that often turns out to not be very scientific.  A more incremental approach, with some common sense thrown in, is called for.  We all want renewable energy and energy independence, but there's a right way and a way that's popular with the chattering classes, and they aren't often the same.

August 14, 2009   Permalink

WARNING ON IRAN - AT 10:23 A.M. ET:  Consumed by our health-care debate, we're forgetting the ticking time bomb in Tehran.  British terrorism expert Con Coughlin warns that we're slipping into an extraordinarily dangerous situation, while Mr. Obama plans his summer vacation on Martha's Vineyard:

The West has given up on its attempts to prevent Iran acquiring an atom bomb – and the result will be a nuclear arms race that threatens not only the future of the Middle East, but the entire world.

This, at least, is the apocalyptic view that now appears to be taking root among some of the world’s leading Iran experts, as we approach the make-or-break moment next month when Tehran’s newly re-elected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, decides whether he is prepared to enter into a constructive dialogue over his country’s illicit pursuit of nuclear technology.

And the blame?

Much of the blame for the failure to coax Tehran to the negotiating table, or so it was argued this week, lies with Mr Obama and his unwillingness to take a hard line with the ayatollahs. At the height of the pro-reform demonstrations in June, when the regime’s guardians launched a brutal assault to suppress the protests, he refused to be drawn into an open condemnation of their tactics.

Appeasement always has its price.

...what Mr Obama and his Iran team fail to appreciate is that this policy of appeasement is seen by the mullahs in Tehran – rightly – as a sign of weakness. If the Americans are prepared to sit idly by while the regime brutally suppresses the legitimate democratic aspirations of the Iranian people, why should Iran’s leaders be unduly concerned by threats of possible retaliation over their nuclear programme?

That's one of the great lessons of the 20th century, entirely ignored by the new "sophisticates" in Washington.

Moreover, a mood of defeatism appears to have settled over the White House. As one senior Obama adviser recently remarked: “It wouldn’t be easy to live with an Iran that’s a virtual nuclear power, but at the end of the day, it’s not a complete disaster.”

What leadership.  What determination.  The new standard for health-care reform is that "we're not gonna kill your grandmother," and the new standard in foreign policy is, "It's not a complete disaster."  Change we can believe in.

...the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, which could be relied upon during the Cold War to prevent a nuclear holocaust, cannot be applied to a region in which national pride and personal honour often take precedence over the more basic human instinct for self-preservation.

We're constantly told by our intellectual "betters" that we must "understand other cultures."  But these same people seem incapable of comprehending Coughlin's last point, that the cultures of the Middle East do not think as we do.  We forget that at our peril.

August 14, 2009   Permalink

GEE, WHAT A SURPRISE - AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  John Edwards, who wins some kind of award for being the slimiest candidate to run in recent presidential elections, apparently has something to tell us:

RALEIGH, N.C. — Sources have told WRAL News that they expect former U.S. Sen. John Edwards to admit that he is the father of his former mistress' 18-month-old daughter.

Edwards, a two-time Democratic presidential candidate, confessed last August to having an affair with Rielle Hunter, who served as a videographer on Edwards' 2008 campaign. He has denied fathering her daughter, saying his relationship with Hunter ended before the child was conceived.

The name of the girl's father isn't disclosed on her birth certificate.

COMMENT:  Not good enough.  I want Edwards finally to admit that he became famous, and enormously wealthy, by using junk science to win medical malpractice cases, thus jacking up the cost of the medical system for all of us.  It could be, as the Obamans say, a teachable moment.

Edwards has no shame, and look at the number of people who really believed he was the voice of the average citizen. 

August 14, 2009   Permalink

OH YES, THEY HAVE A DREAM TODAY - AT 8:13 A.M. ET:  Republicans are actually talking about the possibility of victory in next year's congressional elections.  A tough fight yes, but one that's winnable.  Byron York explains, in the Washington Examiner:

It's a possibility many Republicans speak of only in whispers and Democrats are just now beginning to face. After passionate and contentious fights over health care, the environment, and taxes, could Democrats lose big -- really big -- in next year's elections?

Ah, just the thought...

"I think what's going to happen is Obama's going to be fine, and the Democrats in Congress are going to get their asses kicked in 2010," says one Democratic strategist who prefers not to be named. "This is following a curve like the Clinton years: take on really controversial things early, fail, or succeed partially, ask Democrats to take really tough votes, and then lose. A lot of guys are going to get beat, but the president has time to recover."

That's a key point.  The presidency, as Jack Kennedy said, is the center of action.  A president can maneuver a recovery far better than can a member of Congress, who must establish a long, vulnerable voting record.

And even if Republicans don't get the 40 they need in 2010, they could dramatically narrow the gap between the parties, giving Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership less room to operate.

My heart breaks for Nancy.

In recent weeks, poll after poll has shown Republicans neck-and-neck, or even ahead, of Democrats. Even a National Public Radio survey found Republicans in the lead. "There's no question that you're seeing a shift across virtually all the polling," says one GOP strategist, "with Democrats losing ground."

What is so impressive is that the trend is entirely in one direction.  The aura of Democratic invincibility has been broken.

Not long ago, some Republicans were worried about becoming a permanent minority party. Although they may not win in 2010, they feel like they're back in the game.

They should thank Obama, Reid and Pelosi, and honor them with a dinner.  Organic, of course.

August 14, 2009   Permalink

LATEST FROM A PEOPLE'S PARADISE - AT 8:01 A.M. ET:  Let's see if the Obama administration has any problem with this:

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Lawmakers loyal to President Hugo Chavez gave final approval on Friday to legislation that has raised fears among government opponents of impending socialist indoctrination in schools.

The law orders schools to base curricula on what it calls ''the Bolivarian Doctrine'' -- a reference to ideals espoused by 19th-century independence hero Simon Bolivar, such as national self-determination and Latin American unity.

Critics are quick to note that Chavez uses the term ''Bolivarian'' to describe his political movement, and some believe his socialist government intends to win over hearts and minds through classroom indoctrination.

You think?  Classroom indoctrination?  Yeah, that sounds about right for Chavez.  But the same people in Washington who call people at town meetings "a mob," or accuse opponents of the president's health plan of using "Nazi" tactics, will probably take a pass on this one.  After all, who are we to criticize another culture?

Education Minister Hector Navarro accused Chavez opponents and the news media of orchestrating ''a smear campaign'' to deceive Venezuelans.

Boy, does that ever sound familiar.

August 14, 2009   Permalink

THURSDAY,  AUGUST 13,  2009

ANOTHER PROFILE IN COURAGE - AT 7:59 A.M. ET:  From the academic world, which is forever defending, on grounds of "academic freedom," the rights of leftist professors to write and say the most vile things, whether they have any academic content or not:

Yale University is refusing to publish cartoons and images of the Prophet Muhammad in a new book about those very pictures, which inflamed anger in parts of the Muslim world in 2006 — even as a growing tide of writers and artists say they are ready to take such risks for free speech.

The university's press is set to publish a book in November, "The Cartoons That Shook the World," about the dozen devious illustrations of Muhammad printed in Danish newspapers, leading to global riots in which at least 200 people were killed.

The New York Times more or less rationalized the decision Thursday in reporting Yale's choice to reject the images, saying it was "not at all surprising" the school would opt out of printing the notorious pictures of Muhammad. Many Muslims consider any depiction of Muhammad to be blasphemous.

COMMENT: Ah, yes, The New York Times, which endlessly tells us about the "people's right to know" - especially when it's publishing national secrets on intelligence operations.

Hypocrisy flows.

August 13, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY, FROM VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, TRAVELING IN EUROPE - AT 7:26 P.M. ET:  From Pajamas Media:

No, Europe should not only not be our model, but Euros know it should not be our model. A few brilliant Europeans whisper, “Of course, it is lost here, since no addict insidiously hooked on government entitlement ever gives such largess up. But you over there still have a chance.” For a few Europeans, America’s military (drawing on fewer people and less territory and GDP than the expanded EU) is the only hope for Western defense. It’s where most life-saving drugs will emerge, new technologies are birthed, and huge sophisticated markets grow for European goods. So they have a stake in not allowing us to become like them.

And, on the administration's attitude toward dissent:

There are no legitimate critics, only those Obama & Co. claim are shills for the insurance industries, who unfairly attack the Canadian health system, the greedy who go to Vegas and the Super Bowl, the Neanderthal who cling to their guns, the dissidents known as Nazis, stooges, mobs, and the well-dressed who dare to become rude to the Congresspeople.

COMMENT:  Well said on both counts.  It's strange that Europe is moving right as we're moving left.  Well, at least our government is moving left.  The American people seem to be resisting more and more.  But, of course, what do they know?  They cling to their guns and religion, and...they like soldiers.

August 13, 2009   Permalink

SOMEONE'S GETTING SMART - AT 5:57 P.M. ET:  From AP:

Key senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from health overhaul legislation after language in a House bill caused a furor.

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.

A health care bill passed by three House committees allows Medicare to reimburse doctors for voluntary counseling sessions about end-of-life decisions. But critics have claimed the provision could lead to death panels and euthanasia for seniors.

COMMENT:  At least a few people are awake in Washington.  The provision itself had some admirable provisions.  But, as critics said, it could be twisted and "interpreted" by "enlightened" bureaucrats, like a former Democratic governor of Colorado, who was quoted as saying that some people had a "duty to die."  Now the legislators can work on a replacement provision, if they wish, although the kind of advice on end-of-life care mentioned in the original bill is readily available today from physicians and religious groups.

August 13, 2009   Permalink

PAKISTANI OPINION - AT 5:44 P.M. ET:  Are we making progress winning the "hearts and minds" of Pakistanis, whose country sits on a nuclear arsenal.  With a Muslim-friendly president, you'd think so.  But consider:

Pakistani views of al-Qaeda and the Taliban have shifted markedly since last year, with unfavorable opinions doubling to about two-thirds of those surveyed in a new Pew Research Center poll.

Condemnation of extremists did not coincide with a more favorable view of the United States, held by only 16 percent of the Pakistanis surveyed. Only 13 percent said they had confidence in President Obama, a stark contrast to his overwhelming popularity in much of the rest of the world. A hefty 64 percent said they regard the United States as an enemy of Pakistan.

Why the negatives toward America, even with The One in the White House?  Well, that's what people are being told.  By whom?  By the media?  By the Muslim clergy.  It's understandable that unfavorable views of the Taliban and al-Qaeda would grow, as Pakistanis see what they do firsthand.  But news about America is filtered, and it will be very hard, if not impossible, for us to change that.  Guess it wasn't all BUSH (!!) after all.

August 13, 2009   Permalink

PRESIDENT'S NUMBERS DOWN AGAIN - AT 9:39 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen is reporting the lowest approval number for the president since inauguration, and a disapproval number equaling yesterday's, which was the highest since inauguration.

Only 47% of respondents approve of the president's job performance, while 52% disapprove.

Ras's presidential approval index, measuring the gap between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove, is at minus 8, with 29% strongly approving and 37% strongly disapproving.

We always stress that polls are snapshots in time, and that only long-term trends tell the story.  But the long-term trend for the president has been downward.

August 13, 2009   Permalink

AND NOW THE REAL WORLD - AT 9:30 A.M. ET:  The hype machine has been working overtime in the last few weeks, aimed at convincing Americans that the recession is over and that prosperity is just around the corner - something, as I once read, that they said in 1929 as well.  This should sober things up:

WASHINGTON — The number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits rose unexpectedly last week and retail sales disappointed in July. The latest government reports reinforced concerns about how quickly consumers will be able to contribute to a broad economic recovery.

"There is really no positive spin to put on these numbers," Jennifer Lee, an economist with BMO Capital Markets, wrote in a research note. "The U.S. consumer remains very weak. The jobs situation, while slowly improving, is still dismal."

The Labor Department says initial claims increased to a seasonally adjusted 558,000, from 554,000 the previous week. Analysts expected new claims to drop to 545,000, according to Thomson Reuters.

And...

While autos, helped by the start of the Cash for Clunkers program, showed a 2.4 percent jump — the biggest in six months — there was widespread weakness elsewhere. Gasoline stations, department stores, electronics outlets and furniture stores all reported declines.

The July dip was the first setback following two months of modest sales gains. Excluding autos, sales fell 0.6 percent, worse than the 0.1 percent rise economists had forecast.

COMMENT:  There are also warnings by some economists that the stock market rise is a bubble about to burst.  There's no way to know if that's true, but it's clear that we're far from out of the woods. 

August 13, 2009   Permalink

TIME FOR PRAISE - AT 8:37 A.M. ET:  We haven't had much occasion on which to praise the Obama administration here, but we have pledged fairness.  Here is something to praise, from the Washington Post:

Federal agencies will soon have the option of hiring certain military spouses without having them compete for federal jobs, under new guidelines the Obama administration issued Wednesday.

The rules apply to the spouses of military service members relocating for a new assignment, some physically disabled spouses, and those whose husband or wife was killed in the line of duty. The widow or widower must remain unmarried before getting a job.

COMMENT:  Good!  This is a preference program that makes sense, and returns us to the moral obligation that we once felt toward soldiers and their families.  I am guessing, and only guessing, that Michelle Obama had something to do with this.  If so, she deserves public credit, and we'll be the first to give it.

August 13, 2009   Permalink

FROM THE STREETS OF IRAN - AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  One of the things I love is when foreign freedom fighters use American slogans and quotes in their battles - even when our own government is indifferent.

Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi sends us this photo of an Iranian demonstrator in Tehran:

And what is the sign saying?  Banafsheh translates it as, "You can fool one person, everyone can also be fooled once, but not everyone can be fooled all the time."

Remember what Lincoln said?  “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

The demonstrator has read his (or her) Lincoln.  Anyone in the White House interested?

August 13, 2009   Permalink

LIVING THE FANTASY - AT 8:09 A.M. ET:  From AP: 

Iran, whose nuclear facilities are under threat of possible Israeli military strikes, proposed Wednesday that a 150-nation conference convening in the fall ban such attacks.

Iran says the proposal, revealed to The Associated Press by diplomats and confirmed by a senior Iranian envoy, is not linked to veiled threats by Israel of an attack as a last resort if the international community fails to persuade Tehran to freeze its nuclear activities.

Instead, all of the diplomats said the Iranian initiative seeks support for a generally worded document prohibiting all armed attacks against nuclear installations anywhere, when 150 nations convene for the September general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

COMMENT:  I would take this very seriously, even though the proposal is absurd.   There are plenty of countries that would back it just to be in the "peace" camp and to put a stick in the eye of Israel, and even the United States. 

The ban would be unenforceable, of course, but would have a kind of "moral" impact, although proposed by one of the least moral regimes on Earth.

August 13, 2009   Permalink