SATURDAY,  DECEMBER 5,  2009

ANOTHER GRIM POLL FOR OBAMA - AT 7:40 P.M. ET:  A CNN poll reported today contains more depressing news for the White House:

Washington (CNN) -- Support for President Obama has dropped below 50 percent for the first time in a CNN poll despite high marks for his recently announced Afghanistan policy.

Forty-eight percent of Americans questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. national survey released Friday said they approve of the job Obama is doing as president -- a drop of 7 percentage points from a survey last month.

Fifty percent said they do not approve. The difference of 2 percentage points between approval and disapproval falls within the range of the poll's sampling error.

"The poll indicates that the biggest drop in approval comes from noncollege-educated white voters," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director. "That's one indication among many that Obama's growing unpopularity may be more related to unemployment and the poor economy" than to factors such as his strategy for Afghanistan.

COMMENT:  What strikes me about the polls, including the ones that tilt Democratic, is that they're all heading in the same direction, and that the journey is relentless.  The president cannot seem to catch a break.  This may (stress may) indicate that Mr. Obama's problems extend beyond disagreement with an issue here and there. They may be fundamental - a loss of trust in him.

I suspect that's true, but it will take months more of polling to refine the findings.  Also, presidents can regain trust and popularity, and go on to a second term.  Clinton did.  Even Reagan had polling problems during his first term, and his campaign for reelection got off to a rocky start.  Yet, he eventually was reelected in a landslide.  Richard Nixon, never loved by the public, was also reelected in a landslide. 

The basic rule in politics always applies:  You can't beat somebody with nobody.  It will take a strong Republican candidate to defeat Mr. Obama in 2012.  His own problems won't do it alone.

December 5,  2009   Permalink

OBAMA SNUBS CLIMATEGATE - AT 6:01 P.M. ET:  In a sane world, the scandal known as Climategate - allegations that scientists in England cooked the books on global warming data - would prompt major investigations in the United States.  We, after all, will probably pay the highest economic cost if proposals to curtail "global warming" become law.

And yet, the governing party in the United States is silent or contemptuous.  Once again we see that modern liberalism has little to do with proof and observation, and much to do with a blind belief system indifferent to facts, even indifferent to real science.  There is a sarcastic saying among researchers:  "Believing is seeing."  It applies to those who discover in their "research" what they want to discover, what they already believed.

And so President Obama will go off to Copenhagen, indifferent to the implications of Climategate and other, serious questions about "warming."  The political left, which is pushing Obama, has adopted the global-warming agenda.  There must be no questioning.  Dissenters, they say, are like Holocaust deniers.

The liberals, having already marched this country toward bankruptcy, will march it even further if their environmental dreams are made to come true.  From Fox News:

The controversy swirling around the leaked e-mails of climate scientists apparently trying to downplay data and exclude dissenting opinions has led to calls for President Obama to skip this month's climate summit in Denmark until the e-mails can be investigated.

Instead, the White House announced Friday that Obama was doubling down on his commitment to the summit's goals and moving his visit later in the month, hoping it will secure a "meaningful" agreement.

The scandal being referred to as "Climate-gate" has rallied global warming skeptics, who say the threat is exaggerated -- let alone caused by humans. In some of the e-mails stolen by hackers and posted online, scientists at Britain's University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit appear to discuss hiding or deleting data that may contradicts global warming claims. Others discuss ways of keeping competing research out of peer-reviewed journals.

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is the most prominent figure to call on Obama to boycott the conference in Copenhagen in the wake of the e-mails' release.

"The president's decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal," she said in a posting on her Facebook page. "Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices."

COMMENT:  The president really has no choice.  He's already disappointed his loony fringe this week by agreeing to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan.  He can't very well hurt their delicate feelings again by actually questioning one of the building blocks of their new religion.  So he'll go.  Let's just hope he doesn't do too much damage.

December 5, 2009   Permalink

TO HEALTH AND BACK - AT 11:05 A.M. ET:  The Dems are obsessed with health "reform."  John Fund, in a fine Wall Street Journal piece, explains why, and notes the implications:

Voters are increasingly worried about unemployment, but Democratic leaders in Congress remain obsessed with passing health-care reform...

...Still, many in the trenches are uneasy about the sprawling, complex bill they privately acknowledge has no bipartisan support, doesn't seriously tackle soaring costs and will increase insurance premiums. That may explain Majority Leader Harry Reid's haste—he has ordered a rare Sunday session this weekend to hurry up the debate. Public support for the bill averages only 39.2% backing in all polls compiled by Pollster.com.

Nothing like a well-crafted bill.

But buried in the surveys is an explanation for the Democratic obsession to pass the bill: An overwhelming 76% of Democrats back it. "They believe the liberal base expects them to deliver and will punish them if they don't," says Democratic pollster Doug Schoen, who worked for Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

That fear is backed up by a new poll taken for the Daily Kos, the left-wing Web site: 81% of self-described Republicans say they are certain or likely to vote in 2010 compared to 65% of independent voters and only 56% of Democrats. "Democrats have simply not been given enough of a reason to come out and vote yet," writes liberal blogger David Dayen. "The left is waiting for that long-promised 'change' they can believe in."

They live entirely in a world of their own.

So the Senate death march continues. Many Democrats have grave misgivings about making the bill a top priority given the economy. But in the age of bloodthirsty partisan bloggers they dare not be fully candid. They can only hope their march doesn't lead them right over the edge of a political cliff next November.

COMMENT:  And this is the way the future of our health care, and a sixth of our economy, is being decided.  What great change Mr. Obama has brought. 

December 5, 2009   Permalink

THE MOUTH THAT ONCE ROARED - AT 10:32 A.M. ET:  There was a time, and it wasn't long ago, that Barack Obama's rhetoric could move the masses.  Apparently, no more.  Even after the most publicized, and broadcast, Obama speech in recent memory, the president's numbers have not improved at all.  From Rasmussen:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14 (see trends).

These results are collected from nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. Today’s update is the first based entirely upon interviews conducted after the President’s Tuesday night speech on Afghanistan. The results are little changed from before the speech indicating that the President did not receive a bounce in the polls from his presentation.

COMMENT:  This is the first time I can recall when a president of the United States didn't receive at least some bounce from a war speech.  Are Americans tired of Obama?  On to him?  Finally aware that he's an inexperienced egotist?  All of the above?

If a president can't rally America behind a war policy, what's left for him?  This president is in trouble.

December 5, 2009   Permalink

AND IN THE GROWN-UP WORLD - AT 10:25 A.M. ET:  Apparently, other British officials aren't allowing the relationship described just below to taint their view of President Obama's Afghanistan policy.  Not exactly raves, as The Times of London reports:

Tensions between Britain and America over the war in Afghanistan erupted into the open yesterday as the Defence Secretary questioned President Obama’s decision to put a date on the start of US troop withdrawals.

In an interview with The Times, Bob Ainsworth said that the Government would not follow Washington’s promise to start pulling out in 2011. “You can’t put a time on it. You’ve got to look at conditions,” he said.

He accepted that the public would not tolerate the war “going on forever," but insisted there was no deadline for withdrawal. “Nobody is talking about a drawdown, we are talking about bringing more in there . . . but we are talking about transition.” He said that it would be wrong to set a date for the start of troop reductions.

His comments reflect dismay at the highest level in the British Armed Forces about Mr Obama’s suggestion this week that US troop withdrawals would start by mid-2011. Britain expects to have substantial forces on the ground in Afghanistan for at least five or six more years.

COMMENT:  Maybe the Brits should send back to Mr. Obama the bust of Churchill that our president
haughtily returned to Britain early in his term.  That might suggest to the White House the meaning of the term "leadership."

December 5, 2009   Permalink

BULLETIN - YOU TOO, HILLARY?  AT 10:13 A.M. ET:  Wasn't one Monica enough?  Does Bill know about this?  From The Times of London:

The Anglo-American relationship just got a bit more special. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has already admitted to an unlikely crush on David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary.

Yesterday one of the more unlikely pairings in international politics went one stage farther when a NATO meeting in Brussels was the forum for some weapons-grade flirting.

It started with a greeting in the form of an affectionate arm rub, moved on to a series of coquettish glances from Mrs Clinton that weren’t so much smouldering as positively incendiary — and, well, if it had gone any farther, there is little doubt that the meeting would have been drowned out with cries of “Get a room!” (Although, of course, if they did it would doubtless only be to discuss contemporary issues in global development policy).

The attraction between the globe-trotting duo was revealed last month when an interviewer from American Vogue magazine joked with Mrs Clinton — and yes, she is still married, though only to Bill Clinton, so perhaps it doesn’t count — about getting a crush on Mr Miliband, who is 44, after hearing his English accent on the telephone.

“Well, if you saw him it would be a big crush,” Mrs Clinton, 62, said. “I mean, he is so vibrant, vital, attractive, smart. He’s a really good guy. And he’s so young!”

Oh dear Lawd, what is this about?  Chelsea just announced her engagement last week.  Is this mom trying to prove that she's still got the stuff?

Apparently, the feeling is mutual:

The Foreign Secretary returned the praise, describing Mrs Clinton as “delightful to deal with one on one."

Oh, come on Miliband.  The woman is old enough to be your mother.  Get a life.  Or a wife.

I've heard of Lend-Lease, but this is ridiculous.

And do check out the photos with the story.  Even Bill didn't carry on in public like this.

December 5,  2009   Permalink

FRIDAY,  DECEMBER 4,  2009

THE WAY THINGS WORK - AT 8:23 P.M. ET:  Comcast has announced a proposed merger with NBC Universal, which in practical terms is a sale of the latter to the former.  Such things require federal approval, and, well, there are things that one must do.  Andrew Breitbart's Big Government blog informs us that gestures are already being made:

A day, one single day, after the two media giants announced their deal, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts proudly weighed in to strongly support the Senate Democrats’ health care reform bill.

Now Comcast is a big company, with about 100,000 employees. I’m sure health care costs have a big impact on their bottom line. But the bottom line impact on Roberts’ personal net worth will be much greater if the federal government, with a big say-so from the US Senate, approves the $13 billion deal.

So Roberts’s heartfelt letter to the president in support of the Democrats’ singular policy issue was the first action he took in what is expected to be a twelve-month regulatory review process. This is an action with absolutely no relevance to the vast intricacies of the merger, but a move that sets a new standard for blatant pandering aimed at a group of people for whom pandering is the new coin of the realm.

Pander they must.  Apparently, this is part of the change we can believe in. 

On the other side of the transaction, GE CEO Jeff Immelt has been among Obama’s biggest corporate cheerleaders. Immelt is particularly eager to see more government help in the credit realm to benefit GE Capital and to continue to vast government handouts for wind turbines in which GE is heavily invested. Immelt has already pledged his undying support for Obamacare. And now, his company stands to win a huge influx of cash if his new pals in Washington will approve this transaction.

COMMENT:  Yuch.

December 4, 2009   Permalink

HE SPEAKS, AND THE DISCIPLES LISTEN - AT 7:51 P.M. ET:  Reader Joseph J. Gallick alerts us to the latest pronouncement from hot-air expert Al Gore, a week before the big Copenhagen shindig on global warming.  From The Times of London:

Even if a deal is reached at the UN climate change talks in Copenhagen next week it will only be the first step towards the far more radical cuts that are needed in global carbon emissions, Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, told The Times last night.

Mr Gore said that to avoid the worst ravages of climate change world leaders would have to come together again to set more drastic reductions than those now planned.

“Even a final treaty will have to set the stage for other tougher reductions at a later date,” he said. “We have already overshot the safe levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

He insisted that the present goal set for Copenhagen of stabilising world emissions of carbon dioxide at or below 450 parts per million — enough to prevent a rise in average global temperatures of no more than 2C — was insufficient and a safer target would be 350 parts per million.

But serious scientists, like Willy Soon of Harvard, beg to differ, arguing that CO2 does not cause global warming, and that warming often precedes the rise in CO2.

And, naturally...

He also brushed aside questions over the reliability of climate science that have followed the publication last month of leaked e-mails between climate experts. He claimed that the scientific consensus around climate change “continues to grow from strength to strength”. He added: “The naysayers are in a sunset phase with a spectacular climax just before they subside from view. This is a race between common sense and unreality.”

The man is delusional, or deceptive.  Where is the "strength to strength" that he talks about?  And the naysayers, as he calls them, are growing in number, not declining.

Gore should be the first to call for a reexamination of the "science" behind global warming.  But this is a political, not a scientific movement, so reexamination is not on the agenda.

December 4, 2009   Permalink 

ABORTION AND HEALTH CARE - AT 7:37 P.M. ET:  The abortion issue has emerged as a leading impediment to passage of the Democratic health "reform" bill in the Senate, and the debate is increasingly bitter.  From The Politico:

In the past week, abortion has flared up as a major impediment to passage of a health care reform bill in the Senate, taking a similar path as it did during the House debate — from obscurity to obstacle in a matter of days.

After months of trying to craft a 60-vote coalition based on the finer points of health care policy, Senate Democrats are growing increasingly worried that abortion will upend what had become a clear path to approving the overhaul bill.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) sparked a fresh round of concern this week when he repeatedly and definitively vowed to filibuster the health care legislation unless it included abortion restrictions as tough as the so-called Stupak amendment in the House bill.

“I don’t ordinarily draw a line in the sand, but I have drawn a line in the sand,” Nelson said Friday.

And...

“There is a worry that Sen. Nelson means business,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss strategy. “Unlike with public option, there is very little ground liberal Democrats are willing to give on this issue. Abortion, not the public option, may be the cause of our first official defection.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which proved highly influential in the House health care debate, is assisting Nelson and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in drafting an anti-abortion amendment, and its representatives are meeting with senators, including Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.).

COMMENT:  The latest report, this evening, indicates that the debate in the Senate is proceeding very, very slowly.  The drag effect can push action beyond the first of the year, and even into February.  There are no guarantees that any of this will ever become law.

December 4, 2009   Permalink

LOOK FOR THE FINE PRINT - AT 7:08 P.M. ET:  The U.S. will apparently push for new sanctions on Iran in January.  But the fine print here doesn't fill us with optimism.  From AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is looking to press in early January for a new round of United Nations sanctions against Iran for its continued defiance of demands to come clean about its nuclear program, U.S. officials said Friday.

As President Barack Obama's year-end deadline looms for Iran to comply with demands to prove its atomic activities are peaceful, the administration is reaching out to European allies, Russia and China to win support for new penalties at the U.N. Security Council after its membership changes Jan. 1, the officials said.

Huh?  The UN Security Council is the place where China and Russia have veto power, and China, particularly, has said it rejects stronger sanctions.  So what are we doing?

Senior U.S. diplomats, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and her chief deputy James Steinberg, raised the urgency of the matter with European foreign ministers at high-level meetings in Athens and Brussels this week ahead of a summit of European leaders.

Some European countries, especially France, are truly concerned about Iranian nukes.  But, in the end, they usually succumb to their trade interests and pursue, not crippling sanctions, but crippling compromises.

The official said there are still disagreements over how far to push on sanctions, noting that some moves could affect world oil markets. ''We are looking to find what everyone can agree will be most effective and have the least impact on the Iranian people,'' the official said.

It gets more pathetic as you read on.  Tehran must really be shivering over this.

The State Department said Friday the administration was hoping for a strong statement on Iran, including a mention of possible sanctions, from the Dec. 10 and 11 European Council session in Brussels.

''There will be a broad discussion on next steps in that meeting,'' spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters. ''The E.U. is expected to have a written statement on Iran.''

Nuclear negotiations with Iran are in their seventh year, and we are hoping for a strong statement.  And the man in the White House refuses to use the word "victory," even in a war speech.  Prepare for a nuclear-armed Iran.

December 4, 2009   Permalink

NO GAIN FOR OBAMA - AT 9:46 A.M. ET:  Scott Rasmussen just reported that President Obama apparently experienced no gain in public opinion from his West Point speech:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12 (see trends).

These results are collected from nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. Roughly two-thirds of the interviews for today’s update were conducted after the President’s speech on Afghanistan Tuesday night. The President did not receive an immediate bounce in the polls from that speech.

And...

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

COMMENT:  That is a considerable gap.  Now, we always point out that polls aren't frozen, that they're snapshots in time, and can easily change.  But there has been a certain stability in polls over the last few months that may indicate that opinions about Mr. Obama are starting to solidify, and not in a way favorable to the president.

December 4, 2009   Permalink

ECONOMIC CONTRADICTIONS - AT 9:06 A.M. ET:  There is contradictory economic news, but none of it is all that great.  The unemployment rate has dropped from 10.2% to 10%, as The New York Times reports:

The United States economy shed 11,000 jobs in November, and the unemployment rate fell to 10 percent, down from 10.2 percent in October, the Labor Department said Friday.

The government also revised the October number to show that the economy lost 111,000 jobs instead on 190,000.Though pace of job loss has been declining since a peak in January, the November number was surprising. Economists have been expecting a turning point to come in the late spring or summer, with employers finally adding workers as a recovery takes hold. The last time the number was this good was December, 2007, when the economy added 120,000 jobs. “We’re moving toward stability in the labor market and the end of the tremendous firing that has plagued America,” said Allen L. Sinai, the founder of Decision Economics, a research firm.

But...

“But it’s going to be bleak for years. While it is going to be better than what we’ve seen, it’s still going to be terrible.”

And that's the point.  The administration will hail "improvement," but the real situation is awful:

The number of Americans facing long-term unemployment, which includes people who cannot find work for 27 weeks or more, has been at record highs in recent months, reaching 5.6 million in October. It was more than 5.9 million people in November, or 38.3 of percent of those unemployed. Once hiring resumes, those workers are likely to be among the last to land jobs.

And then there's this, from AP:

NEW YORK — A decline in sales at the nation's retailers in November after two consecutive months of gains is an ominous warning sign for the holiday shopping season and for an economy in the early stages of a fragile recovery.

Many merchants may be forced to discount more than they planned to get financially strapped holiday shoppers to buy after last weekend's respectable bargain buying surge didn't offset weak spending for the rest of the month.

The 0.3 percent decline, according to one measure, is especially worrisome because it comes on top of a freefall last November as spooked shoppers went into a defensive crouch after the financial meltdown. Analysts had expected a solid gain. Consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of all economic activity.

COMMENT:  We are far from out of the woods.  And with the Dems piling on more federal debt, we can face a double-dip recession without the economic means to recover fully.

December 4, 2009   Permalink

DELUSIONAL DEMS - AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  The Democratic Party, having invested heavily in climate change as its trendy-issue-of-the-decade, isn't going to allow a bit of data tampering to interfere with the delusion.  Why, why, the science is settled.  This is just another narrative.  This is...oh, you know.  From Declan McCullagh of CBS News:

If you're a U.S. politician calling for expensive new laws relating to global warming, you know you're in trouble when Jon Stewart lampoons the scientists whose embarrassing e-mail messages were disclosed in what's being called "ClimateGate."

Stewart is becoming a better reporter than a lot of the "legitimate" voices out there.

But Democrats put a brave face on it on Wednesday, with Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey saying that the leaked files and allegations of scientific misconduct should not stand in the way of the U.S. Congress swiftly enacting cap and trade legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. (See earlier CBSNews.com coverage of ClimateGate and the costs of cap and trade.)

Incredible.  Why let facts stand in the way?  We have an ideology to pursue.  There are party invitations involved.

Markey, the head of a House global warming committee, said during a hearing that his Republican colleagues "sit over here using a couple of e-mails to (tell us) how to deal with a catastrophic threat to our planet." And: "There is no alternative theory that the minority is proposing, other than that we know has been funded by the oil, by the coal industries that want to continue business as usual."

That is too much for this CBS reporter:

That's a bit of an overstatement. The leak includes over 1,000 e-mail messages, and another 2,500 or so computer files, many of which are still being analyzed. And the burden of proof should properly be on anyone -- even a House committee chairman -- proposing new taxes and extensive regulations, especially when climate science is anything but settled.

What a refreshing perspective coming from a mainstream CBS journalist.

Question:  Will Katie Couric let him live?  That's a serious question.

December 4, 2009   Permalink

DISTURBING, BUT UNDERSTANDABLE - AT 8:14 A.M. ET:  There has been a sharp rise of isolationist sentiment in the United States, according to the latest Pew poll.  This is understandable at a time of domestic economic distress, and occurred in the 1930s as well.  But it is dangerous when the threats against us are real, and growing:

WASHINGTON — At the very moment when President Barack Obama is looking to thrust the U.S. ever more into global affairs, from Afghanistan to climate change, the American public is turning more isolationist and unilateralist than it has at any time in decades, according to a new poll released Thursday.

The survey by the Pew Research Center found a plurality of Americans — 49 percent — think that the U.S. should "mind its own business internationally" and leave it to other countries to fend for themselves.

It was the first time in more than 40 years of polling that the ranks of Americans with isolationist sentiment outnumbered those with a more international outlook, Pew said.

"The U.S. public is turning decidedly inward," Pew said.

Maybe a little more gratitude by foreign nations, especially Muslim nations, whom we've repeatedly helped, would reverse a little of this trend.

It's also growing more unilateralist, with 44 percent saying that the U.S. "should go our own way in international matters, not worrying about whether other countries agree with us or not."

That was the highest percentage since the question was first asked in 1964.

Cheers on that one.  We want allies whenever possible, obviously, but this obsession with international popularity has become completely irrational.  Even CBS's Bob Schieffer, a liberal, said in frustration after Mr. Obama's Afghan speech, "This is not a football game." 

And get this:

A majority of Americans, 53 percent, see China's growing power as a "major threat." That's virtually unchanged from what the quadrennial poll found in 2001 and 2005.

However, 642 members of the Council on Foreign Relations, who are seen as opinion leaders and also were polled by Pew, had the opposite view. Just 21 percent of them saw China as a major threat, down from 38 percent in 2001 and 30 percent in 2005.

For them, Pew said, "China has been transformed from a major threat to the United States to an increasingly important future ally."

An increasingly important future ally?  Well, we certainly hope so, but I'd love to know what evidence these "opinion leaders have."  China, just this last week, threw a "made in China" monkey wrench into our plans for increased sanctions on Iran, a critical issue for the United States. 

I'd like to see some proof that China intends to be our ally. 

December 4, 2009   Permalink

ATTACK IN PAKISTAN - AT 7:52 A.M. ET:  From CNN, breaking:

Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- Militants armed with guns and grenades attacked a mosque during midday prayers in Rawalpindi on Friday, killing at least 40 people and wounding 83, authorities said.

Several explosions followed by gunfire were heard inside the mosque around 1:30 p.m. local time, according to Gen. Athar Abbas, a Pakistani military spokesman. It was not immediately clear what caused the explosions or who fired the gunshots.

The militants entered the compound by climbing over a wall, said Aslam Tareen, Rawalpindi police chief. Several children and elderly worshipers are among the dead.

The mosque -- frequented by retired and serving military officials -- is in a residential area near national army headquarters. A witness told GEO TV that there were up to 300 worshipers at the mosque at the time of the attack.

COMMENT:  Just yesterday there was an attack, in Damascus, on a bus carrying Iranians. 

It's unlikely that these attacks are random.  They reflect the tensions and rivalries within the Muslim world.  There will be some kind of retaliation, and it doesn't make our job any easier.

December 4,  2009   Permalink