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.

SUNDAY,  FEBRUARY 14,  2010

READING BETWEEN THE LINES - AT 8:46 P.M. ET:  The White House has a new strategy for defending itself on terror, as The Politico reports:

Any day spent talking terrorism isn’t automatically a good one for the Obama administration, given the Republicans’ traditional edge on the issue among voters.

But debating Dick Cheney on terrorism? The Obama White House says it’s happy to do that anytime, as it did with Sunday’s split-screen standoff between Cheney and Vice President Joe Biden.

The dueling appearances, along with what is a clear administration strategy to play up its newly aggressive approach in Afghanistan, show a White House determined to project a posture of strength on national security and trying to gain the upper hand with Republicans who wish to portray Obama as weak.

"We have never engaged in chest-beating on what we're doing on terrorism,” said a White House official, who was pleased by how the interviews had played out. “But this dynamic where we're responding to criticism from the former vice president gave us the opportunity to explain what we're doing, without just going out and talking tough.”

And there is some evidence to suggest the strategy is working for Obama. A Washington Post poll released last week found that 56 percent approve of the way the president handles the threat of terrorism, making it Obama’s strongest core issue. Meanwhile his ratings on the domestic issues that got him elected slip: Only 45 percent approve of his handling of the economy, and 43 percent are with him on health care.

COMMENT:  This is a very weird story.  First, Vice President Cheney's poll numbers have risen as he's continued his attack on the Obama administration.  Second, the administration is now playing up policies that seem remarkably similar to those pursued by....Bush-Cheney. 

So the polls seem to show that, the closer Obama gets to the approach of the Bush administration on the terror question, the more confidence the American people have in Obama.   Maybe the White House should ponder that.  Debating Cheney may have some short-term benefits, especially on the left, but it may backfire if Cheney can claim that he's won the argument because Obama is moving closer to his position.

And if there's a successful terror attack, and Obama blows it the way his team blew it with the Christmas-day bomber, Cheney wins hands down.

February 14, 2010   Permalink

STUNNING – AT 8:14 P.M. ET:  The case of the University of Alabama (Huntsville) professor accused of murdering three faculty members on Friday, and severely wounding three others, gets more and more curious, and sickening.

First, we learned that this woman shot and killed her brother in 1986, and was let off despite police protest – the shooting was officially ruled an accident – and that all the records from that killing are missing.

Then we learned that the shooter's mother held a political position.

Next we learned that the district attorney in charge of the 1986 case was William Delahunt, now an influential congressman from Massachusetts, who says he doesn't recall the case.  How a man can forget the killing of a boy by his sister is beyond me. 

And now this, from the Boston Globe:

The professor who is accused of killing three colleagues at the University of Alabama on Friday was a suspect in the attempted mail bombing of a Harvard Medical School professor in 1993, a law enforcement official said today.

It was the second startling revelation in two days about the past of Bishop, who is accused of fatally shooting three colleagues and wounding three others Friday afternoon at a faculty meeting on the University of Alabama's Huntsville, Ala. campus.

A Massachusetts police chief revealed Saturday that Bishop had fatally shot her brother in 1986.

Rosenberg was opening mail, which had been set aside by a cat-sitter, when he returned from a Caribbean vacation on Dec. 19, 1993, according to Globe reports at the time.

Opening a long, thin package addressed to "Mr. Paul Rosenberg M.D.," he saw wires and a cylinder inside. He and his wife ran from the house and called police.

And...

Bishop surfaced as a suspect because she was allegedly concerned that she was going to receive a negative evaluation from Rosenberg on her doctorate work, the official said. The official said investigators believed she had a motive to target Rosenberg and were concerned that she had a history of violence, given that she had shot her brother to death in 1986.

Note that the alleged motive for Friday's murders in Alabama was that Bishop was denied tenure by the university.

Officially, Bishop was cleared in the attempted bombing of the Harvard professor.  Officially, she was cleared of her brother's killing, even though he was shot in the chest at point-blank range. 

But there is much that is curious here.  As we said yesterday, it goes to the issue of public records, and how much a university, like Alabama, had a right to know about a prospective faculty member.

We'll follow this.

February 14, 2010   Permalink

BE A CLOWN, BE A CLOWN – AT 7:13 P.M. ET:  If Joe Biden had been a Republican, he would have been ridiculed out of public life long ago. 

The man has a tin ear – so much so that Obamacare will cover political hearing aids for him, the digital kind.

Here is our one-heartbeat-away guy today, on the Iraq War:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Joe Biden says the Iraq war hasn't been worth its "horrible price."

He says the war was mishandled from the outset and that the U.S. took its eye off the ball. As a result, he says the U.S. was left in a more dangerous position in Afghanistan, where al-Qaida hatched the Sept 11 attacks.

Biden tells NBC's "Meet the Press" that the war also has cost the United States support from other nations.

Still, Biden predicts Iraq will have successful parliamentary elections next month and he says the U.S. is likely to bring home some 90,000 combat troops by the end of the summer.

Does Biden even begin to understand the impact his statements have on the families of those who were killed or wounded?  Does he understand what it must be like to be a soldier in a veteran's hospital hearing the vice president of the United States say that it wasn't worth it?

We can agree or disagree with the policy, just as those in wartime can agree or disagree with individual aspects of strategy or even with battle plans.  But to call it a waste...what a disgrace.

And, of course, Biden, whose point of view is as permanent as a starlet's virginity, didn't always feel that way.  In 2002, Biden said, "We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world."  See the video here.

Last week Biden said Iraq could be one of the great triumphs of the Obama administration.  So he's taking credit for something he opposed, but didn't always oppose.  He was for it before he was against it, and now says it wasn't worth it, but will be a great triumph.

One heartbeat away.

February 14, 2010   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 11:21 A.M. ET:  After a year in office, Barack Obama is still an enigma.  Jennifer Rubin, at Contentions, has an excellent take on what makes Obama tick, or whine, or whatever it is that he does:

Obama is getting flack from his own party for lacking the common touch, failing to connect with ordinary voters, and struggling to identify with Middle America. The mainstream media is baffled because, they say, he came from a middle-class background. What’s the problem? They are stumped.

Much of the problem is that his background isn’t so much middle class as it is academic. A large chunk of his adult life has been spent attending, teaching in, and living in close proximity to elite universities. The intellectual bent (e.g., disdainful of American exceptionalism, ignorant of the workings of free-market capitalism, infatuated with the public sector) and the posture (e.g., remote, condescending) of liberal academics are evident in Obama’s persona and governing style. And his saturation in Left-leaning elite schools certainly explain much of what ails him.

And...

The media was mesmerized by an elite-credentialed author and law professor who seemed so very cool and so intellectually compatible with themselves. But the Harvard Law Review and Con Law 101 don’t prepare one for the presidency. Indeed, it turns out that those who are attracted to such endeavors may lack the stuff of successful presidents — common sense, appreciation for the private enterprise, toleration of criticism, attention to the bottom line, etc. Next time, maybe we should look for someone who fits less well into the Ivy League and more comfortably into the private sector and Middle America. The better presidents, after all, can hire academics — and learn when to ignore them when their advice proves impractical or downright foolish.

COMMENT:  I've always loved first-class academics.  But it always struck me that the best teachers, and scholars, are always the first to tell you what they don't know.  One of my mentors, Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, a distinguished professor of economics (and a Marine hero) constantly stressed to me the limits of academic research. 

I recall traveling with Senator Douglas through Rockford, Illinois, in 1960.  I looked around and made a typical, sneering University of Chicago undergraduate comment about "the kind of people who live here."   Mr. Douglas corrected me.  "Bill," he said, "let me teach you something:  Never underestimate the wisdom of a small town."  I've always remembered that, and remembered that it came from a revered professor. 

One problem in this administration is that it has contempt for the very people it serves.  And the media shares that contempt.  You see it in the handling of health care.  You see it in the president's pathetic apologies to foreign nations.  The people of this country are developing a certain dislike for Mr. Obama, and he thoroughly deserves it.  He should stop underestimating the wisdom of a small town.

February 14, 2010   Permalink

LITTLE BY LITTLE, MY FRIENDS, LITTLE BY LITTLE – AT 10:09 A.M. ET:  Our contributor, Renee Nielsen, refers us to this piece from London's Daily Mail.  Little by little, the truth is starting to come out about the global-warming fiasco:

The academic at the Centrex of the ‘Climate gate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organizational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

COMMENT:  This is just outrageous.  We have never said, by the way, that global warming doesn't occur.  What we have asked for is far more proof that 1) it's occurring over a significant time period and 2) that it's mainly caused by man. 

All we've gotten back is a series of insults and dodges, and assertions that people who reject global warming are in the same league as Holocaust deniers.  But a disturbing series of events, reported, as Renee points out, mainly in the British press, has cast serious doubt on the whole global-warming enterprise.

We wait in vain for some intelligent response from the president, whose science adviser is firmly in the global-warming camp.

February 14, 2010   Permalink 

THE WAY THINGS ARE – AT 9:50 A.M. ET:  Apparently, change we can believe in, isn't. 

The great Michael Barone says that crony capitalism is back in Washington, despite Obama's pledge to banish it.  From the Washington Examiner:

Crony capitalism is now the order of the day in the United States. The government and the United Auto Workers own General Motors and Chrysler, which aren't likely to pay back their billions in TARP money any time soon, if ever. Meanwhile the government tells Americans to stop driving Toyotas.

The government was going to remake the health care sector, and so Billy Tauzin and other health care industry lobbyists were busy in the White House cutting deals to keep their clients above water. The government was going to remake the energy sector, and utility CEOs and lobbyists have been busy flaunting their green credentials.

As my Washington Examiner colleague Timothy Carney has been documenting, Big Business has been busy lobbying Big Government for "reforms" that serve big companies' interests. Wal-Mart backs a health care mandate, Philip Morris shapes tobacco regulation, General Electric is setting up a joint venture to trade carbon offsets.  Wasn't that Enron's line of work back in the day?

And...

The picture is not pretty. Government's pets or, in the president's words, "savvy businessmen," use government to get policies that will give them competitive advantages and stifle smaller competitors. Pleasing their masters in government is now absorbing the psychic energy of CEOs who used to concentrate on meeting consumers' needs in order to make profits.

Back in the 1940s, there was an excuse for crony capitalism -- there was a war on. And FDR had a gift for picking people who, like Kaiser, delivered the goods. Today that excuse is not available, and it's far from apparent that Obama has that gift.

COMMENT:  Harry Truman once said that 10% of Americans had lobbyists in Washington to represent them.  The president, he said, had to watch out for the other 90%.  This president claims to be watching out, but in fact, as the machine politician he is, he goes along with the old ways, as long as his party benefits.

February 14, 2010   Permalink

LOVE NEWS – AT 9:38 A.M. ET:  Urgent report, required reading.  Scott Rasmussen unmasks the whole rotten Valentine's Day business:

Americans have a love-hate relationship with Valentine’s Day.

Thirty-six percent (36%) of adults look forward to Cupid's holiday, but 20% dread it. A plurality (43%) are indifferent to today's holiday.

Interestingly, more men look forward to Valentine’s Day than women. Adults ages 18 to 29 dread it more than those in any other age group.

Those who are married and those who are unmarried feel pretty much the same about Valentine's Day, but adults with children look forward to February 14 more than those who have no children.

COMMENT:  Today is Valentine's Day.  If your significant other happens to be a liberal, please remember the rules:  Environmentally responsible gifts only, nothing with plastic; if an edible, remember trans-fat and caloric levels; if a wearable, please look for the union label; if a driveable, please be sure to choose hybrid technology, or, better yet, a bike; if a plug-in device, please consider the use of electricity and its effect on climate change; if a readable, something from the faculty at Berkeley would be nice; if something intimate, make it gender neutral.

February 14,  2010   Permalink

SATURDAY,  FEBRUARY 13,  2010

OH DEAR, OH DEAR, CALM DOWN – AT 6:08 P.M. ET:  There is already a Scott Brown for president movement:

He's only been a U.S. senator for a week but the drumbeat already has begun for Scott Brown to run for president in 2012, Fox News reported today.

After the Massachusetts Republican captured the seat previously held by Ted Kennedy in an upset election last month, ending the Democrats supermajority in the Senate, Brown's supporters have launched a Facebook page devoted to discussing a potential presidential bid.

They've also scooped up several "Scott Brown for President" domain names, including scottbrown2012.com, scottbrown2016.com and scottbrownforpresident.com -- a Web site that offers "Scott Brown for President" bumper stickers.

A new Gallup poll ranks Brown fourth among 11 potential GOP presidential contenders who voters would like to see as the nominee.

"He is the fresh face, and he's new," Republican strategist and pollster Kellyanne Conway told Fox News. "The whole idea that you don't have enough experience, I think that went out the window with the age of the Obama presidency."

COMMENT:  I wish they wouldn't do this.  They will only damage Brown by calling too much attention to him and making others envious.  He'll become an immediate target, even within the Republican Party.  Competition and envy have predictable effects.

The man just arrived.  We don't even know how he'll perform in the Senate.  Saying that Brown, if he runs in 2012, will have about the same level of experience that Obama had when he ran for president is no great compliment. 

Back off.  This does no good.

February 13, 2010   Permalink

TRAGIC, AND REMARKABLE – AT 5:18 P.M. ET:  This is one of the most fascinating, and most tragic, stories we've seen recently.  And it underscores an important public-policy issue.

Most readers probably know by now of yesterday's shooting at the University of Alabama's Huntsville campus.  A faculty member is accused of shooting three professors dead, and wounding three others, allegedly in a dispute over tenure.  But there is a history, as Fox reports:

A University of Alabama professor accused of fatally shooting three colleagues at a faculty meeting this week shot her younger brother dead at their home in the Boston suburbs more than 20 years ago, but records of it are missing, police said Saturday.

Amy Bishop shot her brother in the chest in 1986, Braintree police Chief Paul Frazier said at a news conference. She fired at least three shots, hitting her brother once and hitting her bedroom wall, before police took her into custody at gunpoint, he said.

Before Bishop could be booked, the police chief back then told officers to release her to her mother, Frazier said.

The shooting of the brother, Seth Bishop, was logged as an accident, but detailed records of the shooting have disappeared, he said.

"The report's gone, removed from the files," he said.

He said people who worked for the police department then remember the shooting and he planned to meet with the district attorney over the possibility of launching a criminal investigation into the report's disappearance.

COMMENT:  The keeping of public records, and access to them, are major public-policy issues.  Many Americans don't realize what "missing" records can cover up, and how easy it is for corrupt officials – not that I'm implying that in this case – to make files vanish.

Also, records that can involve life-and-death issues are often barred from public view because of pressure by commercial interests, professional societies and the education establishment.  There have been many documented reports of physicians who get in trouble in one state simply going to another and setting up a practice because files are sealed.  The same with lawyers.  The same with teachers who've had to be removed from classrooms.  The same with violent offenders whose records are sealed because of age, although these criminals are still dangerous.

We'll follow this story because of its tragic implications.  A woman who allegedly killed her own brother by a direct gunshot to the chest more than 20 years ago was released, and all records are missing.  Now she allegedly murders three people by gunshot.  The college where she was employed had no way of knowing of the earlier incident.  We assume there will be a full investigation.

February 13, 2010   Permalink

APPLAUSE FOR THE TIMES – AT 4:37 P.M. ET:  The liberal New York Times is to be commended for a hard-hitting piece on the fundraising activities of the Congressional Black Caucus.

For years the CBC, which claims to represent African-Americans, has been an "untouchable" on the political left.  Eric Hoffer, the legendary longshoreman-turned-philosopher, once remarked that all movements eventually become businesses, and then rackets.  We may well be seeing that here, as The Times reports:

WASHINGTON — When the Congressional Black Caucus wanted to pay off the mortgage on its foundation’s stately 1930s redbrick headquarters on Embassy Row, it turned to a familiar roster of friends: corporate backers like Wal-Mart, AT&T, General Motors, Coca-Cola and Altria, the nation’s largest tobacco company...

...Most political groups in Washington would have been barred by law from accepting that kind of direct aid from corporations. But by taking advantage of political finance laws, the caucus has built a fund-raising juggernaut unlike anything else in town.

And...

The caucus says its nonprofit groups are intended to help disadvantaged African-Americans by providing scholarships and internships to students, researching policy and holding seminars on topics like healthy living.

But the bulk of the money has been spent on elaborate conventions that have become a high point of the Washington social season, as well as the headquarters building, golf outings by members of Congress and an annual visit to a Mississippi casino resort.

The sad fact is that many African Americans, and their sincere allies, have been duped into believing that the CBC actually helps the disadvantaged.  Get this:

In 2008, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation spent more on the caterer for its signature legislative dinner and conference — nearly $700,000 for an event one organizer called “Hollywood on the Potomac” — than it gave out in scholarships, federal tax records show.

There has always been, in my view, a tendency within the black community to be too trusting of leaders.  It may come from the black church tradition.  But the result in politics is pretty predictable, and we're seeing that result laid out in this story.

There have been credible charges that the fundraising has brought the CBC too close to companies whose products may actually be harmful to the black community.  And the response:

Caucus leaders said the giving had not influenced them.

“We’re unbossed and unbought,” said Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the caucus. “Historically, we’ve been known as the conscience of the Congress, and we’re the ones bringing up issues that often go unnoticed or just aren’t on the table.”

Barbara Lee is the most left-leaning member of Congress, an ally of Fidel Castro, and the only member of Congress to vote against military action after the 9-11 attacks. 

Conscience of the Congress indeed.

This is great reporting, and brave for The Times.  Give credit where it's due.  Why don't I think the Pulitzer committee will notice?

February 13, 2010   Permalink

CLIMATEGATE – THE CONTINUING SCANDAL – AT 11:14 A.M. ET:  The British press is leading us on this one, although some American newspapers have started coming out of their hibernation to acknowledge that maybe there's a story here.

The story is the continued stonewalling by the global-warming establishment in the face of scandal after scandal.  From London's Telegraph:

If there’s one thing that stinks even more than Climategate, it’s the attempts we’re seeing everywhere from the IPCC and Penn State University to the BBC to pretend that nothing seriously bad has happened, that “the science” is still “settled," and that it’s perfectly OK for the authorities go on throwing loads more of our money at a problem that doesn’t exist.

There is now an official inquiry in Britain into serious concerns about the Climatic Research Unit, one of the world's leading research centers in "global warming."

The latest example of this noisome phenomenon is Sir Muir Russell’s official whitewash – sorry “independent inquiry” into the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) scandal.

The inquiry has not even begun and already it has told its first blatant lie – seen here on its official website.

"Do any of the Review team members have a predetermined view on climate change and climate science?

"No. Members of the research team come from a variety of scientific backgrounds. They were selected on the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues the Review is looking at."

The story goes on to point out that several appointees to the "investigative" panel have long, detailed histories as advocates for the conventional global-warming theories, despite the clear denial on the investigation's website.  One has now resigned from the panel in embarrassment.  But the handling of the "investigation" echoes, as we reported yesterday, our Penn State's whitewash of its leading star in warming research, leading some students actually to hold a rally to force a clean, neutral investigation.  They won't get it.  There's too much money involved in this kind of research for Penn State to risk it.

And the Obama White House shows no sign that it has any doubts about the "settled science" of global warming.  The scandal continues.  We are dealing with a religion.

February 13,  2010   Permalink

THINK OF AFGHANISTAN – AT 10:42 A.M. ET:  The largest operation in the history of the Afghanistan war is underway.  It will test the leadership of our new commander in the area, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.  From Fox:

Roughly 15,000 American, Afghan and NATO forces began an assault late Friday on the Taliban in the central Helmand town of Marjah in what senior military commanders are calling the largest operation since the start of the Afghanistan war.

Punching their way through a line of insurgent defenses that included mines and homemade bombs, ground forces crossed a major canal Saturday into the town's northern entrance.

Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, NATO commander of forces in southern Afghanistan, said Afghan and coalition troops, aided by 60 helicopters, made a "successful insertion" into Marjah without incurring any casualties.

"The operation went without a single hitch," Carter said at a briefing in the provincial capital of Lashkar Gah.

Carter said the strike force quickly gained ground as it moved into Marjah and overran disorganized insurgents. "We've caught the insurgents on the hoof, and they're completely dislocated," he said.

Unfortunately, the article doesn't identify the nationalities of the NATO troops.  We understand from other stories that they are British, Canadian and French.  I'm glad to see the French there.  The Brits and Canadians are always with us.  Some of the other NATO "allies" have troops in Afghanistan as baby minders and doorknob polishers.

One key element here is the support our forces will get from President Obama, and, especially, the left wing of his party in Congress.  It's no secret that the Democratic left is opposed to the surge in Afghanistan – well, actually it's against any war America has a chance of winning – and there have been rumblings about attempts to cut off funding.  Your move, Mr. President.

February 13, 2010   Permalink

OBAMA SLIDING AGAIN IN RASMUSSEN POLL – AT 10:27 A.M. ET:  The president makes periodic gains in the leading polls, only to slide back again to depressing numbers.  This is a depressing numbers day:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17.

The 24% "strongly approve" number matches the lowest that Rasmussen has recorded for this president.

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.

I don't see where the White House is doing much to reverse these numbers.  Unless the economy shows dramatic improvement, we may well be looking at a one-term president. 

February 13, 2010   Permalink

WORMY – AT 9:55 A.M. ET:  The way to watch the Olympics is to concentrate on the athletes and forget the International Olympic Committee. 

The blunt fact is that the Olympic "movement" rides on a thin layer of sleaze.  It was in evidence yesterday after the horrible death of a luge participant from the nation of Georgia.  He was killed when thrown off the course in a high-speed training accident, and hurled into a steel pillar outside the track.

There had been a number of complaints, by athletes, about the danger of that track, one athlete saying that he feared being turned into a crash dummy. 

Olympic officials "investigated" the accident.  Their conclusion?  It wasn't the track that was to blame.  It was the dead athlete.  You can't make this up:

WHISTLER, British Columbia – Fast and frightening, yes. Responsible for the death of a luger, no.

Olympic officials decided late Friday night against any major changes in the track or any delays in competition and even doubled up on the schedule in the wake of the horrifying accident that claimed the life of a 21-year-old luger from the republic of Georgia.

They said they would raise the wall where the slider flew off the track and make an unspecified "change in the ice profile" — but only as a preventative measure "to avoid that such an extremely exceptional accident could occur again."

If the track wasn't responsible, why make the changes?  The hypocrisy flows.

Within sight of the finish line, Nodar Kumaritashvili crashed coming out of the 16th turn and slammed into an unpadded steel pole while traveling nearly 90 mph. Despite frantic attempts by paramedics to save his life, he died at a trauma center.

Concerns about the lightning-fast course had been raised for months. There were worries that the $100 million-plus venue was too technically difficult, and a lack of significant practice time by everyone but the host nation's sliders would result in a rash of accidents.

Let the record show that the concerns were ignored.

But the International Luge Federation and Vancouver Olympic officials said their investigation showed that the crash was the result of human error and that "there was no indication that the accident was caused by deficiencies in the track."

Blame the dead guy.  Invite him to testify. 

This doesn't surprise me at all.  The Olympic "movement" never cared much about the athletes, but only about itself, the cash, and the politics.  It is a movement with an uncomfortable history of dancing with fascism, and of shady judging practices. 

I won't write a long essay about this now – maybe in the future – but cheer the athletes and ignore the sponsorship.  We have some terrific kids in these games, and the U.S. Olympic Committee is far better than it used to be.  But it's for the kids.

February 13,  2010   Permalink