THURSDAY,  JANUARY 31,  2008    

•   Barack Obama has an idea.  And what an idea it is, my friends.  Move your coffee a little away from you and to the left.  You don't want to spill it when you read this.  I'll wait.

Now, here it is.  Senator Obama has told the French magazine Paris Match that he wants to organize a Muslim summit.  That's right.  Here's the quote:

Muslim and Western leaders would be invited to the summit for "a discussion about how we can prevent the widening misunderstandings and gaps between the Muslim world and the West," Obama said in the interview to Paris Match.

"I will ask them to join us in battling terrorism but we should also be willing to listen in terms of some of their concerns," he said in the interview to be released Thursday.

You just know it when you hear greatness speak.  Why didn't I think of this?  It's so clear - what the world needs is another conference where people can "air their differences."  We can let it all hang out.  We can get real.  We listen to them, they listen to us.  Why, that's the source of the problem, isn't it?  Gosh darn, people just don't listen.  And the Muslim world?  Why, they just want a voice.  We haven't heard one of their complaints since 9/11, have we?  And those multi-million-dollar Saudi lobbyists in Washington?  Haven't said a thing.  And those PBS types?  Haven't told us one word about Muslim concerns. 

Can't you just wait for the photo ops?  President Obama with some leader whose followers chop off heads.  President Obama trying to "understand" why women have to be beaten.  And, naturally, President Obama hearing, from all of them, that the real problem in the world is Israel.

And that's when the trouble begins.  President Obama returns from the summit with a "new perspective," one that he's had all along.  And suddenly, with Jimmy Carter's advisers at his side, our policies start to change, and we wonder what we've elected.

Why did Senator Obama choose to make this proposal to a French magazine, rather than to the American people?  Well, just look at the proposal.  I'm surprised he said it at all.  But it will drift to these shores, and Americans will ask what Mr. Obama really thinks of the people who attacked us on 9/11.  That is the question.

•   If the senator from Illinois wants to know about the kind of thinking that is creating these unfortunate "misunderstandings," he might read this from London's Telegraph.  The opening paragraphs tell the story:

Private Muslim schools have been given the power to police themselves, despite widespread fears over religious segregation, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

In a controversial move, they have won the right to appoint their own Ofsted-style inspectors. A new independent watchdog has been set up to be more "sensitive'' toward Islamic education.

The decision comes despite concerns some private Muslim schools are already failing to prepare pupils for life in modern Britain.

Barry Sheerman, the chairman of the Commons schools select committee, told MPs last month local councils were finding it "difficult to know what is going on in some faith schools - particularly Muslim schools."

I wonder if Westerners at Mr. Obama's international conference will ask why there's so much secrecy in so many Muslim schools.  Why do I think the question will never be asked?  After all, we must not offend.  We must only "understand."

•   Finally, we're starting to see some probing of the whole Obama deification, and Obama's link to the Kennedys, who certainly know something about deifying.  Froma Harrop, of the Providence Journal, writes in a very tough and candid piece:

That was quite a spectacle -- the commentariat gushing superlatives over the alleged power of Ted and Caroline to deliver liberals to Barack Obama. Half the electorate wasn't even born when the sainted John F. Kennedy was assassinated -- and few have any idea who Ethel is. Though the Kennedy brand is in steep decline, the wave of conformist opinion still thinks this endorsement is very big.

And she makes clear her disgust with the whole thing:

In a non-romantic look at the family, "The Dark Side of Camelot," author Seymour Hersh described John's 1960 strategy as follows: "He made his mark not in the Senate, where his legislative output remained undistinguished, but among the voters, who responded to Kennedy as they would to a famous athlete or popular movie star."

Sound familiar?

I never thought I'd be quoting Seymour Hersh approvingly, but we take what we can get.  Yes, it sounds familiar, and it's frightening.  Where are the tough questions posed to Senator Obama?  The press applauds itself for its "adversarial" relationship with government.  It lavishes praise on itself for "speaking truth to power."  Apparently, these items are being tucked away, as the American media go gaga over a vague candidate and his friends, the ghosts of the sixties.

•   We turn to the Republicans.  McCain hasn't got the nomination in the bag, but, unless there's a real reversal, he should be much closer next Tuesday.  Today, he'll be endorsed by Governor Arnold Schwarznegger of California, which is the biggest prize next week.  But even if McCain proves unstoppable, there are things he must do to strengthen his position and get his party, which doesn't always adore him, behind his candidacy.  The Wall Street Journal spells it out in a thoughtful editorial:

Senator McCain can take pride in his remarkable political comeback, and it will now be tempting for him to think that he can ignore the conservatives in the party who have opposed him. The press corps will goad him to do so, and some of his own advisers still haven't figured out that this is no longer the 2000 primary. Perhaps he might even be able to defeat Mr. Romney playing that game.

But to win in the fall, he will need the active support of a broad, motivated coalition. The Democrats are energized like they haven't been in a generation, and they will rally around any nominee. If Mr. McCain wants to prevail in November, he'll show with his policies and magnanimity that he wants to be the leader of the entire Reagan coalition.

Good advice for a man who must win if we're to avoid another Clinton soap opera or the vagueness of a man who sounds more like a preacher than a president.

•   This just in.  Forget all that trivia about the American election campaign.  It's nothing, zilch, compared to the growing crisis that the European Parliament is heroically confronting.  We haven't seen anything like it since the French armies went up against the Hun at the Maginot Line.  This time, though, free Europe is determined to get it right.

The threat?  You knew it was coming:  Patio heaters. 

Yes, to the relief of all decent men and women, the plague of patio heaters may finally be crushed, buried by the might of a God-fearing Europe.  The Times of London reports:

Britain’s growing café culture and taste for alfresco drinking and dining may be under threat from MEPs who want to ban the patio heater.

A vote in Brussels today is expected to call on the European Commission to abolish the heaters to help to tackle climate change. Such a move could cost the pub and catering trade dear.

Of couse, there are the excuse makers, the same kind of people who defended Hitler:

Experts claim that patio heaters are being singled out unfairly and that their impact on global warming is minimal. Eric Johnson, national expert reviewer for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said that televisions emitted more carbon dioxide. Using government figures, he said that patio heaters accounted for 22,200 tonnes of CO2 , 0.002 per cent of total emissions in Britain.

Probably some heater-industry patsy.  Go at it, Europe.  It's about time someone put the heater crowd in its place.

•   More from The Times of London.  Apparently, the writers strike is starting to have an impact on TV audiences.  Viewership is down a reported 21 percent, and the bigwigs fear that these people may not come back once the strike ends.  The key quote:

Writers as well as studios are worried that lost viewers may never return to TV, instead finding new ways to entertainment themselves, such as YouTube, Facebook or video games. The most recent figures show that YouTube has had an 18 per cent surge in traffic, while visitor numbers to other websites, such as Crackle, have seen doubled, albeit from small bases.

During the last writers' strike of 20 years ago, about 10 per cent of network TV viewers never returned, most of them going to subscription cable channels such as HBO.

Full disclosure:  I am a member of the striking Writers Guild of America.

Audience size is always a matter of concern.  But here's a radical idea, networks:  If you give people something good to return to, they'll come back.  If you bore them, they won't.  Mull that over during yoga class.

•   And, as if we don't have enough worries, here's something for Sunday:  The Super Bowl may be hazardous to your health:

For rabid fans of the New York Giants and New England Patriots, this Sunday's Super Bowl won't be just a game. It may be a health hazard.

Heart attacks and other cardiac emergencies doubled in Munich, Germany, when that nation's soccer team played in World Cup matches, a new study reports.

While history suggests European soccer fans can get a bit more worked up than the average American football fan, doctors think there are some valid warnings to be shared.

"I know a little bit about the Super Bowl," study author Dr. Gerhard Steinbeck of Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich said in a telephone interview. "It's reasonable to think that something quite similar might happen."

Frankly, I'd worry more about a medical reaction to tonight's Democratic debate.  So, to protect my health, I'll avoid it.

Be back later.

Posted on January 31, 2008.