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.

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 25,  2010

HOLIDAY WRAP-UP – AT 11:31 P.M. ET:  We had a very pleasant Thanksgiving, and hope you did too.  We went to a family dinner in a house built in 1775, a year before the writing of the Declaration of Independence.   You could just feel the ghosts – George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Larry King.  A good time was had by all. 

I've been sweeping the news sources, on this very slow news day.  Every day should be a major holiday, for the politicians are silent and not causing any trouble.  But watch for these stories tomorrow:

1.  The Korean crisis.  No one is quite sure what the North is after, but the South Koreans are bolstering their defenses.  One danger of the recent North Korean artillery barrage against a South Korean island is the possibility of blundering into an accidental war.  The U.S. administration is sending an aircraft carrier and supporting ships to the area as a show of force.

2.  WikiLeaks, the official leaker of the radical left, is set to release hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. diplomatic cables.  These might contain highly embarrassing assessments by American diplomats serving abroad.  It is simply incredible how little interest our mainstream media has shown in determining where WikiLeaks is getting all this classified material. 

3.  Everyone will be watching sales on Black Friday, so named because retailers that have been in the red look to the day to finally put them in the black.  Some economists are predicting a good day, but their predictions are tempered by the fact that many shoppers are lured by deep discounts, which cut severely into profits. 

We'll be back tomorrow.

November 25, 2010      Permalink

GIVING THANKS – AT 10:26 A.M. ET:  All of us can list the things we are thankful for on this day.  We might all consider adding things that aren't on the traditional lists.

Let me add my own:  I think we should be thankful for many, many wonderful kids in our younger generation.  It's easy to disparage the young.  Every older generation does it.  But when you consider the volunteers in our all-volunteer military, and what they have sacrificed, we must be grateful to them.  In fact, all over America there are young people are aren't on drugs, who don't rush to anti-American demonstrations, and who contribute to their communities every day.

I'm thinking specifically of a small group of veterans and ROTC cadets who, once a week, raise the flag at Columbia University.  Columbia doesn't permit ROTC, so these cadets get their training at other schools.  I'm sure their weekly gesture of patriotism is ridiculed by the "sophisticates" around them.  But these veterans and cadets are the real sophisticates, the ones with a mature understanding of the world and their responsibilities within it. 

So, on this Thanksgiving, let's add the good members of the coming generation to our list of things for which we are thankful.  They deserve it. 

November 25, 2010      Permalink

FOR OBAMA, A MIXED THANKSGIVING – AT 10:16 A.M. ET:  Mr. Obama has, like all Americans, much to be thankful for.  But one thing, surprisingly, that he might not be thankful for is the continued power of Nancy Pelosi.  It seems Ms. Pelosi is moving into a kind of subtle opposition to the president.  From AP:

WASHINGTON -- Hers was the face on the grainy negative TV ads that helped defeat scores of Democrats. His agenda, re-election chances and legacy are on the line. Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, chosen after a messy family feud among Democrats to remain as their leader in the new Congress, and President Barack Obama share a keen interest in repairing their injured party after this month's staggering losses.

But Pelosi's mandate is diverging from the president's at a critical time, with potentially damaging consequences for Obama's ability to cut deals with Republicans in the new Congress.

Their partnership is strained after an election in which Pelosi and many Democrats feel the White House failed them by muddling the party's message and being too slow to provide cover for incumbents who cast tough votes for Obama's marquee initiatives.

Pelosi will lead Democrats "in pulling on the president's shirttails to make sure that he doesn't move from center-right to far-right," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., a co-chair of the liberal Progressive Caucus in the House. "We think if he'd done less compromising in the last two years, there's a good chance we'd have had a jobs bill that would have created real jobs, and then we wouldn't even be worrying about having lost elections."

COMMENT:  Oh dear, oh dear.  It is craziness time at the old corral.  I mean, get that last paragraph.  Lynn Woolsey, Madame Flako of the California delegation, is worried that Obama "doesn't move from center-right to far right."  Really?  Obama is center-right?  As Johnny Carson used to say, "I did not know that."

Nor does anyone else.

This is the kind of thinking that goes on at the Democratic left.  And it's the kind of thinking that Nancy Pelosi will now be defending, as she tries to force the left's agenda on an already leftist and sinking White House.  The Democratic left didn't even notice the recent election.  If it did notice, it didn't care.

And pundits complain about the Tea Party's influence on Republicans.

Look for an internal food fight among the Dems.  I expect to see some of them in "Che" T-shirts before too long.

November 25, 2010     Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  Ah, how Thanksgiving is misused.  Only a New York Times columnist could twist a Thanksgiving column to include his own piece of absurd political propaganda.  Robert Wright, another Times leftist columnist, gives us this:

Since what I enjoy is focusing on the negative, this sent my mind back into the realm of nonblessings. For example:

(1) The New Start treaty — which just about every analyst, Democratic or Republican, says would make America more secure — is on the verge of being sunk by a few senators for partisan reasons. (2) This is symptomatic of intense political polarization, bitter division that is paralyzing our politics. (3) Some of America’s divisions, dangerously, are falling along ethnic lines. In particular, American Muslims are often the object of irrational fear and suspicion.

At this point I typically envision a scenario in which these pieces of bad news, along with others, find a horrible synergy that ushers in the apocalypse.

I’d like to think that it’s just me, but the truth is that never before have I heard so many people I know say they’re deeply worried about America — more worried than they’ve ever been, even.

COMMENT:  They are worried, in part Mr. Wright, because of people just like you.  Narrow, irresponsible people.

First, the START treaty isn't being sunk by a few senators for partisan reasons.  Those senators are calling for a reexamination based on their thoughtful concerns about the state of our nuclear deterrent. 

Second, American Muslims are rarely the object of irrational fear and suspicion.  We have been incredibly tolerant, as a nation, of the Muslim community.  But it is entirely responsible and mature to have concerns about elements within that community.  Americans expressed those same concerns about elements within the German-American community before World War II, just as we promoted German-Americans like Eisenhower and Nimitz to lead the struggle against fascism. 

Wright's column begins this way:

An aspect of Thanksgiving I’ve always had trouble with is the part about giving thanks. I’m not against gratitude, but things to be grateful for just don’t naturally spring to mind.

Another example of why The Times, out of touch with the nation, is slipping badly.

November 25, 2010     Permalink 

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