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.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2010

BEFORE THANKSGIVING – AT 8:18 P.M. ET:  As we prepare for turkey, let us contemplate the way in which dedicated public servants protect us from the evils of poor eating.  From the San Francisco Chronicle:

As expected, the Board of Supervisors bucked Mayor Gavin Newsom Tuesday, and overrode his veto of legislation to bar fast-food restaurants from giving away toys in kids' meals sold in San Francisco unless they have reduced calories, salt, fat and sugar and also include fruit and vegetables.

The restrictions, vigorously opposed by McDonald's, the California Restaurant Association and other representatives of the fast-food industry, are set to take effect in December 2011.

The new law, modeled after a Santa Clara County ordinance adopted earlier this year, aims to combat childhood obesity and hold "the fast-food industry accountable to creating healthier choices for our kids," said Supervisor Eric Mar.

Of course, the kids and their parents are entirely free of blame.  They're just victims of greedy capitalists and warmongering makers of hamburger sauce. 

The board voted 8-3 to override Newsom's veto, the bare minimum needed. Joining Mar were Supervisors John Avalos, David Campos, David Chiu, Chris Daly, Bevan Dufty, Sophie Maxwell and Ross Mirkarimi. Opposed were Supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier, Carmen Chu and Sean Elsbernd.

It was one of the few times during Newsom's seven years as mayor that his veto wasn't upheld.

In his veto message on the toy ban, Newsom said that although it is well intentioned, it goes too far. Parents, not the government, he said, should make the call on what their children eat.

COMMENT:  Newsom might have to explain to the Board of Supervisors what a parent is.  Good definitions are available.

I'm having whatever I want tomorrow.  I want to be banned in San Francisco.

November 24, 2010      Permalink

SOMETHING ELSE TO BE THANKFUL FOR – AT 7:49 P.M. ET:   Be thankful for small blesssings.  From the Denver Post:

The Colorado Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court decision denying University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill's effort to get his job back.

The court ruled that Denver District Judge Larry Naves was right to direct a verdict in favor of the university and to find that the university was entitled to "quasi-judicial immunity."

"We conclude that the nature of the decision reached by the university and its regents, and the process by which that decision was reached, shared enough characteristics with the judicial process to warrant absolute immunity from liability," states the opinion from Judge Dennis Graham, who was writing for the Court of Appeals.

Churchill's lawyer, David Lane, said he will try to convince the Colorado Supreme Court to take up the case. He predicted the case could eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Churchill has vowed that he will teach again at the university.

"All I can say is that it's a shame that in America some of our most cherished freedoms are in the hands of the politicians and bureaucrats in black robes to protect," Lane said.

Right decision.  Churchill wasn't fired for his opinions, as obnoxious as they were.  (He likened some victims of the 9-11 attacks to Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi official who organized the Holocaust.)  He was fired for various academic offenses, like plagiarism and fraud.

Churchill is one of those academic leftovers from the sixties era – all rights, no responsibilities.  He is one of a number of academic jokes on college campuses, teaching students who pay vast fees to hear the accumulated wisdom.

Maybe Code Pink has a job for him.

November 24, 2010      Permalink

LATEST COUNT – AT 9:49 A.M. ET:  I suspect most Americans don't realize that the 2010 elections are not really over.  Several House races have yet to be decided in recounts and challenges.  But the Republican gain continues to grow as decisions are made.  From The Hill:

Rep. Dan Maffei (D-N.Y.) conceded to his GOP challenger Tuesday afternoon, giving Republicans their 63rd pickup in the House...

...That leaves three House races uncalled: Reps. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.), Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) and Jim Costa (D-Calif.). The Democrats have leads in all three.

COMMENT:  Even if the Dems win all three remaining contests, the Republican gain of 63 seats in the House is staggering.  Think of it this way:   Sixty three seats is almost two thirds the size of the entire U.S. Senate. 

And yet, we see no sign that the administration is changing any policies as a result of this firm rejection.  From a raw political viewpoint, that may be good news for our side, for it will probably mean that Obama will, in 2012, run on his leftist record, not the centrist charade he manufactured in 2008.

November 24, 2010      Permalink

WILL OBAMA FACE A 2012 PRIMARY CHALLENGE? – AT 8:54 A.M. ET:  That is the most intriguing political question circulating inside the Beltway.  Well, that and the question that asks whether Obama will actually run again.

Most political theoreticians say that a primary challenge is most likely from Obama's left...if there's anbody on Obama's left.  Only a true, credentialed leftist, could run against him without being called "racist," although that will probably happen anyway.  Moderate Obama critics like outgoing Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, have no standing with the party's flake-encrusted base. 

Any challenge would likely fail, in part because African-Americans would make it clear that, if their man isn't heading the ticket, they would stay home on election day.

But a challenge can be highly damaging to Obama in the general election.  Both recent presidents defeated for reelection, Jimmah Carter and George H.W. Bush, had faced primary challenges before losing the general.  A primary challenge lowers the stature of the incumbent and renders him vulnerable.

So who would challenge Obama?  Two names that come up are Russ Feingold, recently defeated senator from Wisconsin, and the most liberal man in the current Senate, and incoming Governor Jerry Brown of California, who has nothing to lose.  Neither would get very far, in my view.

The 2012 campaign has already begun.  "Fasten your seat belts," as Ms. Davis said in 'All About Eve,' "this is going to be a bumpy night."

November 24, 2010     Permalink

DAMAGING TO OBAMA – AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  American voters have made it clear that they regard unemployment as the key factor in the economy.  So this, from WaPo, cannot be considered good political news at the White House:

Unemployment is set to remain higher for longer than previously thought, according to new projections from the Federal Reserve that would mean more than 10 million Americans remain jobless through the 2012 elections - even as a separate report shows corporate profits reaching their highest levels ever.

Top Federal Reserve officials project that the unemployment rate, now 9.6 percent, will fall only to about 9 percent at the end of 2011 and about 8 percent when the next presidential election arrives, in late 2012. The central bankers had envisioned a more rapid decline in joblessness in their previous forecasts, prepared in June.

Growth that is much greater than anticipated would be needed to substantially reduce the jobless figure.

The corporate profits report is a bit deceptive.  Yes, corporate profits are extremely strong, but largely because corporations are learning to get along with lower overhead, which means employees and employee benefits.  For the American worker, this is hardly something to applaud.  And if those corporate profits are benefiting anyone, it's probably executives, not exactly a popular group in America right now.  (A late report says that Wall Street executives, warned about conspicuous consumption several years ago, are splurging again.  Being obnoxious is the game they play best.)

None of this is good news for the president.  The 2012 election, unless there's some catastrophic foreign event that intervenes, will again be fought on the economy, and Mr. Obama begins with a distinct disadvantage.  At the same time, the Republican-controlled House must now come up with policy proposals to show a contrast.  A Republican victory in 2012, even with a limping economy, is not guaranteed.

November 24, 2010      Permalink

TRAVEL DAYS – AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  Now, on some of the heaviest travel days of the year, we'll see if the new airport security systems work.

A poll now shows that most Americans support the invasive screening and pat-downs.  I understand their concerns.  But what is hilarious here is that the controversial techniques are getting their strongest support from some of Obama's most fanatical supporters, people who surely would have called this "fascism" or "police state tactics" if George W. Bush had employed them.  For example, terminal loonbag Cynthia Tucker of The Atlanta Constitution:

For all the carping from airline passengers over the intensive new security screenings, it’s time for Obama to come out and strongly defend them. Whenever administration officials suggest that they will adjust overly zealous measures, their critics think they’re backing down. So Obama and his administration ought to staunchly defend the new procedures, without equivocation, everytime they are asked about them.

My, my.  What will they defend next?  Waterboarding?  Well, if Barack wants it...

It seems to me that what the Obamans are afraid of isn't terrorism, but alternative security measures that violate their 1960s souls.  From CBS News:

...the uproar has prompted some to ask - albeit tentatively in some cases - if the time had come to consider using racial and other profiling as a security measure.

Complaining last week about the new procedures, conservative Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthhammer wrote that "The only reason we continue to do this is that people are too cowed to even question the absurd taboo against profiling - when the profile of the airline attacker is narrow, concrete, uniquely definable and universally known."

At a debate last night hosted by Intelligence Squared US, syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock argued that "we want the TSA and others to recognize that the current threat to passengers and airliners comes almost exclusively from one source, and we all know what it is, young males between about 18 and 35 who practice a fundamentalist strain of the Islamic faith, and generally hail from the Middle East, as well as largely Muslim nations in Africa and South Asia."

Well, that last may be too restrictive a description, but profiling of various kinds makes sense.  The Israelis, who have had great success with air security, engage in behavioral (not racial) profiling.  While there have been excessive incidents, they seem to be relatively few.

But profiling gets the left's juices going.  And there are certainly kinds of profiling that are offensive.  But behavioral profiling by well-trained security people might have stopped last year's Christmas bomber, who tried to blow up an airliner over Detroit.  The problem with the invasive screeners and pat-downs is that the terrorist class now knows exactly what it is up against, and will plan accordingly. 

Political correctness takes its toll.

November 24, 2010     Permalink

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23,  2010

AGAIN? – AT 8:26 P.M. ET:  Where do you think the president of the United States was today?  In his office confronting North Korea?  Having critical talks with Congress over extending the Bush tax cuts?  Trying to formulate an energy policy?

Silly people.  Do you think he'd be doing any of those things when there's something more important to do?  And what is that, you ask?  Why, it's...campaigning.

Now, wait.  Isn't the election over?  Yeah, it is, but this pesty democracy stuff comes up every few years, and a man's got to be ready.  So the president was in Indiana today, and even journalists favorable to him realized what it was all about.  From WaPo:

KOKOMO, IND. - President Obama used a visit to a revitalized Chrysler transmission plant here Tuesday to tout the success of his auto industry bailout, saying that all three major U.S. automakers are profitable and growing because his administration made "the right decision" to back them.

Uh, little problem.  Ford wasn't backed because it declined any federal aid.  It's doing far better than the others.

In some ways, the president's appearance in this small Midwestern town known as the "city of firsts," where Old Ben, a two-ton bull, still gets bragging rights as the world's biggest stuffed steer, represented a kickoff of the 2012 race for the White House.

The visit by Obama and Vice President Biden was billed by the administration as part of its "White House to Main Street" effort to highlight economic progress and publicize the back-from-the-brink success of the automobile industry.

But with Republicans flexing their newfound power in Washington and gaming out their 2012 prospects, and the White House ready to put top political players back in campaign mode, it was hard not to see this visit as an opening argument for 2012.

Are you getting tired of this?  Didn't we elect this man to govern?  Is he ever off the campaign trail?  Wasn't he just on it a few weeks ago?

Barack Obama feels far more comfortable campaigning than governing.  That's the problem.  He appears to be eternally insecure about holding on to his office.

Let me tell you a true show-business story:  Jack Benny was booked to appear on one of Lucille Ball's TV shows.  Now, Lucille Ball was one of the biggest stars of television.  I can't think of anyone who was bigger.  But when Jack Benny arrived at the studio he was shocked to see Ball running around, neurotic and frenetic, telling everyone what to do and acting as if the whole show was falling apart.

Jack turned to one of the producers and remarked,  "Will someone please tell Lucy that she's already got the job."

That's exactly the way I feel about Obama.  Will someone please tell him that he's already got the job?  He seems constantly to be running for office.  But he doesn't seem to occupy the office.  Now, out on the campaign trail again, he just calls more attention to the problem.

Obama as Lucy.  What a picture.

November 23, 2010   Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 7:08 P.M. ET:

If you're planning to fly after the new year, you may find a familiar face next to you on your next flight to San Francisco. That's because Speaker Nancy Pelosi will no longer have access to military aircraft and will instead fly commercial to her district after she becomes House minority leader, her office confirmed to Politics Daily.

I want to see her go through that scanner.  I just want to see it.  I understand that the newest scanners will show what passengers looked like before the plastic surgery.

November 23, 2010      Permalink

OUR INTELLIGENCE DOLLARS AT WORK – AT 8:56 A.M. ET:  If this wasn't so serious, it would be hilarious.  From Fox:

KABUL, Afghanistan -- A man leading the Taliban side of peace talks with the Afghan government was an impersonator, an Afghan close to the negotiations said Tuesday, an embarrassing revelation for Afghan officials who have promoted reconciliation efforts as the best chance for ending the war.

Quickly moving to do damage control, President Hamid Karzai dismissed the reports as "propaganda," saying neither he nor any other members of his government had ever met with a man named Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour -- one of highest ranking members of the Taliban council leading the insurgency.

The report about the impostor first appeared in The New York Times and the Washington Post.

An Afghan familiar with the reconciliation efforts, confirmed that a delegate claiming to be Mansour "was a fraud." He spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to jeopardize his contacts with both sides.

COMMENT:   What if they had reached an agreement and announced it publicly?  Does a treaty with a fraud count? 

Incredible that this could happen.  Where were the intelligence agencies?

November 23, 2010      Permalink

OBAMA'S HEALTH-CARE HOAX – AT 8:37 A.M. ET:  The Dems like to say that they "passed health care."  They did not.  They passed a law about health care.  Whether it will lead to any health care is an open question.

Day by day, we are learning that Obamacare isn't what it's cracked up to be, and that real health losses can occur.  From Byron York at the Washington Examiner:

The New York Times reports there is a "growing frenzy of mergers" in the health care field in which hospitals and other care providers, pressured by the new law's provisions, are joining forces to save money. "Consumer advocates fear that the health care law could worsen some of the very problems it was meant to solve," the paper reports, "by reducing competition, driving up costs and creating incentives for doctors and hospitals to stint on care, in order to retain their cost-saving bonuses."

The Obama administration's answer to the problem will undoubtedly be more regulation. But the wave of mergers is just one of many signs of trouble with the new law.

For example, we know that the government's Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has found that the new law will increase health care costs, rather than reduce them, in the coming decade. We know that cuts in Medicare, with the money saved going to pay for expanding coverage to the poor, will jeopardize seniors' access to care. We know the law will make it impossibly expensive for companies that currently offer bare-bones health coverage to low-income employees to keep doing so. We know several corporations are taking giant write-downs because the bill will increase the cost of providing prescription drug coverage to retired employees. And perhaps most important, we know the law offers an enormous incentive for employers who currently provide coverage to workers to stop doing so, sending those workers to buy coverage in government-subsidized health care exchanges.

In sum, what the law means for millions of Americans is: No matter what the president said, if you like the coverage you have now, you can't keep it.

COMMENT:  To your good health.

November 23, 2010      Permalink

CRISIS IN KOREA – AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  There has been a dramatic escalation of tensions between North and South Korea, with open military action by the north.  From Fox:

SEOUL, South Korea -- North Korea bombarded a South Korean island near their disputed western border Tuesday, setting buildings ablaze and killing at least two marines and injuring 16 others after warning the South to halt military drills in the area, South Korean officials said.

South Korea said it returned fire and scrambled fighter jets in response, and said the "inhumane" attack on civilian areas violated the 1953 armistice halting the Korean War. The two sides technically remain at war because a peace treaty was never negotiated.

The United Nations Security Council could hold an emergency meeting in the next day or two over the attack, saying "It's in the works for either today or tomorrow. We are for it and planning is ongoing," Reuters reports.

The United States, which has tens of thousands of troops stationed in South Korea, condemned the attack and called on North Korea to "halt its belligerent action," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in Washington. He said the United States is "firmly committed" to South Korea's defense, and to the "maintenance of regional peace and stability."

The North's artillery struck the small South Korean-held island of Yeonpyeong, which houses military installations and a small civilian population and which has been the focus of two previous deadly battles between the Koreas.

COMMENT:  Why shouldn't North Korea act belligerently?  Who's stopping them?  Barack Obama, the tough man of the West? 

North Korea sank a South Korean warship earlier this year?  Where was the response?  North Korea has now built, in violation of agreements, an advanced nuclear processing plant.  Anyone interested?

What we are seeing is the fruit of appeasement.  It never changes, does it?

November 23, 2010      Permalink

OH DEAR, OH DEAR, WHAT CAN THE MATTER BE? – AT 7:46 A.M. ET:  It's only one poll, but it will not bring holiday joy to the administration.  Maybe it's true that the Thanksgiving turkey isn't the only turkey in the White House.  From Andrew Malcolm at the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog:

President Obama has passed the Big 4-0 -- going the wrong way.

Turns out voters were not simply satisfied to spank the Democrat and his party in the Nov. 2 midterm elections with historic losses in the House of Representatives.

Obama's job approval rating as calculated by the Zogby Poll has now sunk to 39%, a new low for his 22-month presidency that began with so much hope and excitement and poll numbers up around 70. As recently as Sept. 20, his job approval was 49%.

A whopping 60% now disapprove of his job, up from 51% disapproval Sept. 20.

Obama now trails in hypothetical 2012 matchups against Republicans Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and the next Bush, Jeb.

And, oh, my! Lookee here! Obama has even fallen into a statistical tie with none other than Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor. How embarrassing that is because other polls have shown a majority of Americans believe she is unqualified for the presidency. So it appears many have now decided, on second thought, Obama looks that way too.

Obama began losing the support of independents in the summer of 2009, as he responded to polls showing voter concerns focused on the economy by staging 59 town hall meetings on healthcare. Independents were a crucial part of his coalition win in 2008 but have now dwindled to 39%.

Only 6% of Republicans, not surprisingly, approve of Obama's job performance. But younger voters, also crucial in the ex-state senator's convincing defeat of John McCain, now approve by only 42%.

Nearly 7 in 10 likely voters say the country is on the wrong track, rarely a good sign for incumbents.

But, Zogby notes, perhaps most ominous for the president is that he's now losing support among his own party people. His approval plopped nearly 10% in just one week, from 78% down to 72% in Zogby's latest read.

Obama, John Zogby writes, "is failing to please more than one-fourth of his own party’s voters. This is a perilous position for the President.

COMMENT:  In fairness, other polls give higher numbers to the president.  But the fact that a major pollster has him in the thirties could have a devastating psychological impact.  What is remarkable is that Obama seems to do so little to right the ship.  He seems almost indifferent and passive. 

The movements of his political staff indicate that he's going to run again.  But I really wonder.  If most of the polls follow Zogby and show him sinking into the 30s, would Obama then want to risk being the first African-American president to be turned out of office?  Or will he believe that the press will save him once again?  On that he could be right.

November 23, 2010     Permalink