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.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

NOTE TO READERS:  Starting from our first year of publication, Urgent Agenda has had a daily SNIPPETS page.  Snippets are short, amusing, sometimes ironic news items, followed by a brief comment.  The pressure of time has limited us to one snippet a day in recent months, and it seems foolish to devote a separate page to a once-a-day event.

So, beginning today, our Snippet of the Day will be published on our main page, mixed in with our main posts.  I just think it makes more sense, and is more convenient for readers. 

MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 2010

ABOUT THAT GROUND ZERO MOSQUE – AT 7:48 P.M. ET:  My Argentinian friend, and courageous blogger, Susanna Kohan, alerts us to a superb piece by Mark Helprin in The Wall Street Journal, about the World Trade Center mosque.  There are some real gems here:

Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, says of those who with heartbreaking bravery went into the towers: "We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting."

Mr. Mayor, the firemen, the police, the EMTs and the paramedics who rushed into those buildings, many of them knowing that they would die there, did not do so to protect constitutional rights. They went often knowingly to their deaths to protect what the Constitution itself protects: people, flesh and blood, men and women, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers. Although you yourself may not know this, they did.

Hear, hear.  Have you noticed how often the left, which disparages displays of patriotism routinely, whips out the flag whenever it gets into trouble?  They're worse than the so-called "superpatriots." 

The left is trying to make the mosque at Ground Zero a Constitutional issue.  It clearly isn't.  It's an issue of taste and sensitivity.  No one is denying anyone's Constititonal rights.

This small and symbolic crisis is not a test of constitutional liberties, for in regard to the question at hand the Constitution allows discretion. It is rather a test of how far America can be pushed, and America is not at all as powerless as it has been portrayed.

That is because the street in front of the mosque that the Constitution says can be built can be filled with people who can effectively protest it because the Constitution says that they are free. Those who do not fear to do so need only go there and stand upon their convictions, their beliefs, their reason, their laws, their history, and what is in their hearts.

COMMENT:  Wonderfully stated.  Please read the whole article.  It will be one of the best things you've read on the subject.

Oh, by the way, the imam in charge of the proposed mosque said today that the teachings of Islam prevent him from moving it.  That is an utterly chilling thought.  I wasn't aware that Islam dealt with real estate issues, but apparently it does.  But I'd like to know a bit more about that teaching, and why we, as a nation, must bow down before it.

August 30, 2010      Permalink

GOOD NUMBERS – AT 7:33 P.M. ET:  The Gallup people counters now tell us that the GOP has taken an "unprecedented" lead in the congressional generic ballot:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Republicans lead by 51% to 41% among registered voters in Gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences. The 10-percentage-point lead is the GOP's largest so far this year and is its largest in Gallup's history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for Congress...

...The Republican leads of 6, 7, and 10 points this month are all higher than any previous midterm Republican advantage in Gallup's history of tracking the generic ballot, which dates to 1942. Prior to this year, the highest such gap was five points, measured in June 2002 and July 1994. Elections in both of these years resulted in significant Republican gains in House seats.

COMMENT:  Bill Kristol estimates that a six-point lead would translate into a pickup of about 60 seats for the GOP.  A ten-point lead?  The results could be dazzling.

A reminder:  The election won't be held for another two months.  The Democrats haven't yet informed the American voters that the Republicans will take away their children and sell them to oil companies.

August 30, 2010      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 11:31 A.M. ET:

NEW YORK, Aug. 29 (UPI) -- A New York City woman has been arrested for allegedly faking an injury after a light pole knocked down by a truck missed her, police said.

Sherin Brown, 23, was walking on a Brooklyn borough street Friday when an out-of-control truck hit the pole, which fell but did not hit Brown, the New York Post reported Sunday.

As police responded to the accident scene, a surveillance camera allegedly caught Brown, unharmed, lying down on the ground near the felled light fixture and telling responding officers she was injured, the newspaper said.

It's New York.  Next stop for Sherin Brown:  How does Governor Brown sound?

August 30, 2010      Permalink

OH DEAR, OH DEAR, WHAT CAN THE MATTER BE? – AT 10:58 A.M. ET:  We posit that everyone is in favor of a nice environment.  I mean, we all like clean air, right?  But environmental "groups" are something else again.  The Washington Post reports that some of these groups have woken up and realized that the public isn't buying their line any longer.  We wonder why:

On Thursday, some of the country's most respected environmental groups - in the midst of their biggest political fight in two decades - sent a group of activists to Milwaukee with a message.

We're losing.

They put on what they called a "CarnivOil" - a fake carnival with a stilt-wearing barker, free "tar balls" (chocolate doughnuts), and a suit-wearing "oil executive" punching somebody dressed like a crab. It was supposed to be satire, but there was a bitter message underneath: When we fight the oil and gas industry, they win.

"We killed the clean-energy bill! There's still no cap on oil spills!" yelled Heather Brutz, the barker, who was pretending to speak for the industry. "And now, for our graaaaaaand finale, we're going to pass the diiiiiirty-air act!"

A year ago, these groups seemed to be at the peak of their influence, needing only the Senate's approval for a landmark climate-change bill. But they lost that fight, done in by the sluggish economy and opposition from business and fossil-fuel interests.

Now the groups are wondering how they can keep this loss from becoming a rout as their opponents press their advantage and try to undo the Obama administration's climate efforts. At two events last week in Wisconsin, environmental groups seemed to be trying two strategies: defiance and pleading for sympathy.

Neither one drew enough people to fill a high school gym.

COMMENT:  They live in their own world.  Sure, environmental groups have done some fine work.  But in the 1970s their ranks were swelled by old leftists who were looking for a new cause after they destroyed our effort in Vietnam.  Environmentalism looked neat, but they turned a well-meaning movement into a political march.  The first "Earth Day" was held on Lenin's birthday, and no one thought it was a coincidence.

In recent years the enviros went for too many bridges that were too far.  On climate change, they have used suspicious data and unproved theories.  Too often their cry of "the sky is falling" was followed by the sky remaining firmly in place.  And so many Americans have grown skeptical.  They become especially suspicious when they're told they must abandon the life they've striven for, while some environmental "leaders" live in huge mansions and fly in private planes. 

What the environmental movement needs is greater care, more modest goals, and a decent respect for the lives that people dream of living.  If they're going to go for a hundred percent, which the left often does, and if they continue to show contempt for average people, which the left also does, they will lose more and more. 

August 30, 2010      Permalink

OBAMA'S TERROR OUTRAGE – AT 9:11 A.M. ET:  The president will address the nation this week marking the withdrawal of American combat units from Iraq.  If he follows his usual practice, he'll demonstrate a complete lack of class by failing to acknowledge the role played by former President George W. Bush in staying the course, originating the "surge," and seeing it through. 

But there's another outrage being committed – this administration's failure to bring to justice those who've committed horrible acts against us.  The distinguished historian, Arthur Herman, documents just what's happened, putting the blame squarely on the president:

Americans are learning there's one minority group President Obama is never afraid to offend: families of victims of Islamist terror.

First, Attorney General Eric Holder wanted to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attack, in lower Manhattan -- which nearly everyone, even Mayor Bloomberg (eventually), realized would be a standing insult to the memory of KSM's victims.

Then came Obama's "I was for it before I was against it" stance on the Ground Zero mosque -- another slap at 9/11 victims' families.

Now, last Friday, we learned that "no charges are either pending or contemplated" against one of the deadliest and most dangerous al Qaeda operatives, Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, mastermind of the October 12, 2000, bombing of USS Cole that killed 17 sailors and officers and wounded dozens more.

And...

After 9/11 Bush and other Americans understood that we were in a war, not a "Law and Order" episode. They understood that such a war required more effective instruments than our civilian courts and the normal legal process. The time-tested, Supreme Court-approved system of military tribunals for trying enemy combatants was one such instrument.

Obama told his political allies on the left that as president he'd turn Bush's War on Terror upside down. The terrorists would now get constitutional protections; and those who fought against them would go to jail as "war criminals."

Now, Obama's popularity is in a tailspin...If he starts even one military trial of an alleged terrorist, even one who attacked a military installation, he loses whatever shred of credibility he still has with his political base.

It is incredible to think that a crowd dominated by Code Pink and modern Jane Fondas may well have more influence over the fate of captured terrorists than the families of victims.

"It seems like nobody really cares," says Gloria Clodfelter, whose 21-year-old son died in the Cole bombing. Like the KSM trial and Obama's stance on the Ground Zero mosque, the decision to suspend the al Nashiri proceedings has nothing to do with justice and a lot to do with politics. The shame is that, once again, those who suffer are the families of those killed by terror, not the terrorists themselves.

Maybe Americans will finally come to realize what we elected in 2008.  And maybe reasonable Democrats will come to realize what's happened to their once-great party.

August 30, 2010      Permalink

PROGRESS – AT 8:36 A.M. ET:  I want once again to thank the many readers who've asked me about my medical situation, and also asked me to write about my adventure.

Well, I'm not going to do that.  I've never particularly admired people who, if you ask, "How are you?" give their entire medical histories, and provide X-rays.  We've all met them.  I have a rule at my house:  You can have any disease you wish, but please don't talk about it.

For those just joining us, I had shoulder surgery a month ago today.  To be brief, things are coming along, some activity is returning, and I can start driving a bit this week, pitting me against a lot of teenaged girls in Corvettes.  But it's more important to think of people who are seriously ill, including one of our readers who had a near-death experience during this time.  And it's important to think of our men and women in the military, whose medical situation dwarfs mine.  That, by the way, includes those injured in training accidents, something we too often forget.  Military service is hazardous by nature.

However, having had this experience, I was reminded of the stakes involved in Obamacare.  I was lucky to have choices.  And I was lucky that my surgeon also had a choice of medical teams with which to work.  Physical therapy is critical to my recovery, and I was given a list of perhaps 20 physical therapy centers from which to choose.   By asking for recommendations, I found the one best suited to my needs.  Only in a largely private system, where facilities compete with each other for patient loyalty, is that possible, and I fear we may well lose that advantage if the socialized medicine battalions have their way.

I'm not naive enough to believe that all government service is poor and all private service wonderful.  Only a fool believes anything that simplistic.  But the sheer variety and flexibility of our system is at the core of its excellence. 

I'm insured with two separate plans, one of which is private, the other being Medicare.  I'm happy to report that my experience with Medicare has been good, and the people we speak with when we have questions have been competent and courteous.  (We give credit here where it's due.)  But the private plan has the need to compete, and there is an extra edge.  That doesn't mean all private plans are wonderful or fair.  They are not, and reform is clearly needed.  But I dread thinking of what life would be like with only one system, with no choice, and no one to whom to appeal.

One of the gimmicks socialists push is "simplicity."  Why, the single payer system is so "simple."  Don't buy it.  Simplicity is also the basis for the appeal of dictatorships.  Why think when others are willing to do it for you?  Sometimes the complexity, even the noise, of a competitive system serves us far better in the end.  Don't be afraid of a little messiness.

The first "benefits" of Obamacare kick in this month.  The senator who guided the program through his committee in the Senate admitted last week that he'd never read the bill.  I'm apprehensive about what's in store for us, which makes this midterm election even more important.  Take it from a guy whose right arm is in a sling:  This election affects all of us personally.

August 30, 2010      Permalink 

DRAGGIN' – AT 8:04 A.M. ET:   Welcome to the last week of August, the slowest news week of the year, with the possible exception of Christmas week. 

It is a week filled with anticipation.  In Hollywood, stars, producers and agents anticipate their psychiatrists' return from vacations.  This is a major event requiring parties, wine, and petitions to save various species. 

For us, we anticipate what will start next week – the most important midterm election campaign of our lifetime.  America has a stark choice between the alarming death rattle of our drift toward European socialism, and slamming on the brakes and saying to President Obama, "No you won't."  We hope for victory.  We're encouraged by the trends.  But we also worry about overconfidence, arrogance, and a few inadequate candidates who can do more harm than good.  We must run scared, and run as if we're 20 points behind.  We must also finally recognize the enormous impact that a biased media will have.  You may be certain that, in some newsrooms, the "I'm in journalism to make a difference" crowd is already opening probes of conservative candidates, the better to smear them with the usual, one-size-fits-all charge of, check one, 1) racism, 2) sexism, 3) Islamophobia, 4) homophobia, 5) or that old, sentimental favorite, they'll-take-away-your-Social-Securityism.

Starting next Tuesday, Urgent Agenda will devote a special section every day to the election, as we count down to November 2nd.  So stay with us.  As the great Bette said in "All About Eve," it's going to be a bumpy night.

August 30, 2010     Permalink

SUNDAY, AUGUST 29, 2010

PUTTIN' ON THE AGONY, PUTTIN' ON THE STYLE – AT 10:45 P.M. ET:  The president expresses his anguish at the presumed misinformation about him that is out there, some year and a half after he took office.  From The Politico:

President Barack Obama dismissed a recent poll showing that a third of Americans don’t know he’s a Christian – and blamed an online campaign of misinformation by his conservative enemies for perpetuating the myth that he’s a Muslim.

Obama, speaking with NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams on Sunday afternoon, was equally dismissive of conservative talk show host Glenn Beck – saying he didn’t watch the Fox host’s Saturday rally in Washington but wasn’t surprised that Beck was able to “stir up” people during uncertain economic times.

Williams, sitting under a tent in a rain-soaked New Orleans, where the First Family commemorated the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, asked Obama why so many people were uncertain about something so fundamental as his faith.

COMMENT:  Well, for starters, Mr. Williams and his fellow mainstream journalists did a poor to nonexistent job of vetting this president while he was running for office.  We literally were not permitted to ask serious questions about his past, and his associations, without the risk of being called McCarthyites or racists.

Add to that the fact that Mr. Obama's "outreach" to the Muslim world has, more often than not, seemed more like appeasement and coziness.

Add also to that the fact that the president's Christian beliefs often appear artificial, more a political necessity than anything heartfelt.  It's hard to equate true Christian belief with the stuff preached in Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.'s church over the two decades that Obama sat in the pews and apparently didn't listen.

There is no serious online campaign of misinformation.  There may be some nuts out there who make things up.  If there is any online campaign, it is one of questioning.  The questions are legitimate.  The fact that they're there at all is the fault of Mr. Obama and his media sympathizers.

August 29, 2010     Permalink

CHANGING TIMES – AT 7:30 P.M. ET:  Some stories just symbolize the changing of the times.  Like this one:

LONDON -- It weighs in at more than 130 pounds, but the authoritative guide to the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary, may eventually slim down to nothing. Oxford University Press, the publisher, said Sunday so many people prefer to look up words using its online product that it's uncertain whether the 126-year-old dictionary's next edition will be printed on paper at all.

The digital version of the Oxford English Dictionary now gets 2 million hits a month from subscribers, who pay $295 a year for the service in the U.S. In contrast, the current printed edition - a 20-volume, 750-pound ($1,165) set published in 1989 - has sold about 30,000 sets in total.

Hey wait.  Seems to me the print edition is a better deal over five years.  No?

It's just one more sign that the speed and ease of using Internet reference sites - and their ability to be quickly updated - are phasing out printed reference books. Google and Wikipedia are much more popular research tools than the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and dozens of free online dictionaries offer word meanings at the click of a mouse. Dictionary.com even offers a free iPhone application.

COMMENT:  And every young college student realizes that, y'know man, like, you don't need no dictionaries 'cuz they aren't cool and they take up some, whatchacall it, shelf space, where the flat screen goes.  Got that?

Come to think of it, even if the Oxford continued its print edition, who in the new generation would ever open it?  The way things are going, it will probably be labeled as hate speech before too long.

August 29, 2010      Permalink

OH, PLEASE SAVE US FROM THIS – AT 10:57 A.M. ET:  Mr. Obama wants to travel again.  Will someone please drain the fuel from Air Force One.  According to a leaked report, Obama is going to travel to the Mideast.  Just what they need:

Mr Obama, who set Middle East peace as one of his top foreign policy goals when he assumed office in 2009, will make his first visit as president to Israel and the West Bank to persuade both sides to agree to concessions for the sake of peace.

Mr Obama will oversee the relaunch of direct talks between the two sides next week in Washington.

Although Washington is pushing for a comprehensive peace deal within 12 months, implementation will be spread out over a 10-year period, according to a report in Yediot Aharonot, the Israeli newspaper.

Washington wants the intensive talks to cover core issues, including borders, refugees and the future status of Jerusalem, according to the leaked White House protocols of a conference call held this week between senior administration officials and American Jewish leaders.

If the sides fail to reach an agreement on a particular issue, US officials will intervene and offer a compromise, the report said.

COMMENT:  I think we all sense the excitement in the Middle East over the president's impending visit.  After all, the man has built up such credibility, and such a record of accomplishment, in his first 17 months in office.  Why, he was even given the Nobel Peace Prize during his first week in office.  We await his magic touch.

Oh, notice the last line we quote – that the U.S. will offer compromises if the parties can't reach agreement.  No doubt the Israelis can't wait for Obama's ideas.

August 29, 2010      Permalink

NORWAY?  WHAT DID THE NORWEGIANS DO? – AT 10:39 A.M. ET:  You all know the game that's played when we deal with the Jihadists.  "Why, we brought it on ourselves," say their sympathizers, and their leftist allies.  Apparently, Norway, where nothing ever happens, has done something sinful:

OSLO, Norway (AP) -- When police arrested a suspected al-Qaida cell in Norway last month they turned up the makings of a bomb lab tucked away in a nondescript Oslo apartment building.

An Associated Press investigation shows that authorities learned early on about the alleged cell by intercepting e-mails from an al-Qaida operative in Pakistan and -- thanks to those early warnings -- were able to secretly replace a key bomb-making ingredient with a harmless liquid when one of the suspects ordered it at an Oslo pharmacy.

Officials say the suspected plot against this quiet Nordic country was one of three planned attacks on the West hatched in the rugged mountains of northwest Pakistan by some of al-Qaida's most senior leaders. The other plots targeted the bustling New York subway and a shopping mall in Manchester, England.

Interviews with U.S. and European intelligence officials and documents reviewed by the AP paint the picture of a loosely organized cell that was doomed to fail long before Norwegian police raided its basement lab in suburban Oslo in July. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the cases publicly.

COMMENT:  These plots are, fortunately, often incompetently designed.  But that should give us no reassurance.  All it takes is one massive bomb to go off in a crowded area for hundreds to die.  Eventually, jihadist mistakes will be corrected.

We forget that September 11, 2001 was the second terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York.  The first occurred in 1993 and killed six people when a huge bomb went off in a parking garage.  We didn't take the warning seriously enough.

August 29, 2010      Permalink

BRIT WRITER NAILS IT AGAIN – AT 10:08 A.M. ET:  Toby Harnden of Britain's Telegraph has been one of the most astute observers of the Obama administration, and was one of the first to figure Obama out.  Now he asks a legitimate question:  Why does Obama help fuel the notion that America, the most multicultural nation on Earth, is intolerant?  Hmm.

As the whole world knows, there is a furore raging over the proposed building of a 15-storey Islamic community centre, containing a mosque, two blocks from Ground Zero, site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda.

America's liberal elites have been falling over themselves to denounce their country and fellow citizens as anti-Muslim xenophobes who don't understand that it was not all followers of Islam who were responsible for the atrocities of 2001.

And...

In fact, most evidence points to the US being one of the most tolerant countries in the world. A poll from you won't see cited much because it doesn't fit the prevailing narrative was recently conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute.

It found that 76 per cent of Americans would support Muslims in their community building an Islamic centre or mosque provided they followed the same rules and regulations required of other religious groups. But the 9/11 site is seen as different. After the 9/11 attacks there was no anti-Muslim backlash in the US.

Obama's ill-judged intervention, and the shrill outrage of his allies in the intelligentsia, has damaged America's standing in the world by fuelling anti-American stereotypes.

They don't care about that.  They love those anti-American stereotypes.

Many Americans are incensed by the way that legitimate protest and questioning of Obama's policies is routinely branded as racist or ignorant. They are tired of being told what to think and when to think it.

During the 2008 campaign, for instance, you were a bigot if you mentioned Obama's middle name or his Muslim background. Yet once he was elected, he went to Ankara and Cairo to proclaim that his full name was "Barack Hussein Obama".

Wonderfully stated.  Charles Krauthammer has made the same point equally well.

When will Americans understand that we have an elite, at least part of it, that is overtly anti-American?  Member of this group see themselves as above the country, above the rabble, above "those people out there."  These are the same elitists who, at election time, say that they're championing average Americans.  But they rarely condescend even to speak with those very people they claim to represent.

August 29, 2010    Permalink