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.

SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE - DRAGGING

Our subscription is just about half over, and we've barely reached 34% of our goal.  We did have a spurt yesterday, but it came entirely from our regular subscribers, who added to their subscriptions.  This is wonderful, and shows the loyalty of Urgent Agenda readers.  We cannot do without our core supporters. 

But, in truth, we really need new subscribers.  So, if you haven't subscribed, please don't leave it to the other guy.  We hope you'll join us today, and help keep us moving.

Subscriptions are our lifeblood. Without them, we cannot function. With them, we can fight off all evil. 

We started taking subscriptions about 18 months ago.   As a result, we're about 60% of our way to financial stability.  But we're still not home.  We're not in danger of going dark.  But, unless we expand our subscription base, we are in danger of diminishing our service.

You can subscribe by going to the column on the right, just opposite these words.

By subscribing you keep Urgent Agenda alive. You also get The Angel's Corner, our twice-a-week e-mailed publication.  At The Angel's Corner you can join our Forum.  Write on anything you wish, and you're not limited to 140 characters.   Did you know that some Angel's Corner pieces are used in college classrooms?  

And at The Angel's Corner we give the very coveted Pompous Fool award, bestowed on those who meet the highest standards of absurdity.  Recipients have wept at the news that they've won.

Subscribe for a year, or six months, or donate what you wish.  We also have a family plan.  For little more than a year's subscription, you can have a second sent to someone else - like a loved one you want to save from political correctness.

We have a 91% subscriber retention rate - almost unheard of - but, if you want to drop your subscription, the unused portion will be refunded with only a few insults.

Subscribe today. A credit card will do it. Or, we can send you a mail address, if you prefer.

------------------

I have a new piece up at Power Line on the death of Kathryn Grayson.  For those who may be interested, it's here.

------------------

WEDNESDAY,  MARCH 3,  2010

SO YOU CAN SLEEP BETTER TONIGHT – AT 8:30 P.M. ET:  Career advancement news from Fox:

LASHKAR GAH, Afghanistan — A man freed from Guantanamo more than two years ago after he claimed he only wanted to go home and help his family is now a senior commander running Taliban resistance to the U.S.-led offensive in southern Afghanistan, two senior Afghan intelligence officials say.

Abdul Qayyum is also seen as a leading candidate to be the next No. 2 in the Afghan Taliban hierarchy, said the officials, interviewed last week by The Associated Press.

The story of Abdul Qayyum could add to the complications President Barack Obama is facing in fulfilling his pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo by sending some prisoners back to their home countries or to other willing nations, while putting others on trial.

U.S. intelligence asserts that 20 percent of suspects released from the Guantanamo Bay prison have returned to the fight and the number has been steadily increasing.

Qayyum's key aide in plotting attacks on Afghan and international forces is another former Guantanamo prisoner, said the Afghan intelligence officials as well as a former Helmand governor, Sher Mohammed Akundzada. Abdul Rauf, who told his U.S. interrogators he had only loose connections to the Taliban, spent time in an Afghan jail before being freed last year.

He rejoined the Taliban, they said. Akundzada said he warned authorities against releasing both him and Qayyum.

COMMENT:  Can't blame it on Obama.  These guys were released under Bush, who fell under the influence of his father's foreign-policy crowd during his second term. 

The real world, the serious world, the adult world, must be laughing at us.

March 3, 2010   Permalink

FROM BAD TO WORSE AT NANCY'S HOUSE – AT 7:17 P.M. ET:  I'm sure that what they're saying around the House of Representatives tonight is, "At least Charlie was a nice guy."

Ethically overwhelmed Charles Rangel has asked for a leave of absence as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee as he fights off a series of serious ethics charges, some of which could escalate to legal charges. 

The problem is that there is nothing in the House rules that allows for a leave of absence.  You either have the job or don't.  It's expected by observers that something will be worked out, but that Rangel is essentially gone.

His replacement, though, at least for now, is likely to be Pete Stark of California, a man suffering from terminal obnoxia.  Stark is one of the most disliked members of the House, a man whose face even a mother would reject.  He has been known to get into pushing matches with fellow members.  You won't find him on Mount Rushmore anytime soon.  Maybe Mount Revolting. 

It's hard to believe the Democrats would want to keep Stark as chairman of the committee that writes our tax laws.  I mean, the image itself is awful, and there's at least an 80% chance that Stark will blow up at a news conference. 

So, another great moment in government, starring Nancy and Her Gang.  Be inspired.

March 3, 2010   Permalink

WE'LL BE WATCHING THIS CLOSELY – AT 7:00 P.M. ET:  From London's Daily Mail:

Three men were arrested in dawn raids this morning, taking to four the number being held over allegations of terrorism fundraising.

It follows the arrest on Thursday of a 30-year-old British Airways employee in Newcastle. A second BA staff member was among the group arrested this morning.

The three men, aged 31, 32 and 43, were seized by police at 5am today in Slough.

The men are now being questioned about a plot to fund a terrorist attack.

Police refused to clarify what positions the two BA employees had within the airline. Sources said the latest arrests were 'significant'.

And...

Scotland Yard said today: 'Three men were arrested in Slough for alleged offences of terrorist fundraising. The men were arrested at separate addresses by officers from the South-East Counter Terrorism Unit. As part of a joint operation with the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command, the men were taken to a central London police station.'

COMMENT:  I wonder if the guys from the Yard told them, "You have a right to remain silent," as we apparently do here, in Eric Holder's Justice Department.  Why don't I think so?

What strikes me is the relentlessness of the terror-related activity over the past year.  Sooner or later, one of these plots is going to make it through.  Even Obama's voice can't stop it.

March 3, 2010   Permalink

AND, FOLLOWING ON THE STORY JUST BELOW, HERE'S ANOTHER SAN FRANCISCO TREAT – AT 6:53 P.M. ET:  From the Chicago Tribune:

Nothing succeeds in the travel industry like a bad idea. The latest hidden mandatory add-on is a "health" charge added to restaurant bills. As far as I know, this scam cropped up first in San Francisco, but you can count on it to spread.

The rationale for this one is to cover the employers' mandatory contribution to the City's "Healthy San Francisco" health-coverage system. The charge actually is levied on employers, but at least some restaurants are adding a few dollars or percentage points to each customer's bill to cover this charge.

The restaurants' excuse for assessing this charge separately is to let customers know how much they're paying for employees' health coverage.

And...

The restaurants adding this fee self-righteously proclaim, "It's not hidden; we print a notice on our menus." But that, too, is nonsense: Presumably, restaurants could apply that same rationale for extra fees to cover the cost of electricity, heat or linen service.

COMMENT:  What happens in San Francisco should stay in San Francisco.  That 1906 earthquake must have had a permanent effect on judgment.

March 3, 2010    Permalink

GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT – LEAVE IT TO SAN FRANCISCO TO COME UP WITH ANOTHER AWFUL IDEA – AT 6:40 P.M. ET:

Your tax dollars at work.  From the S.F. Chronicle:

San Francisco high school students, just months out of middle school, can start earning San Francisco State college credit this fall through a ninth-grade ethnic studies course.

None of that math, science or English stuff.

At a school board meeting last week, the head of the university's Ethnic Studies program also promised that students would earn up to six college course credits for the high school freshman course - a rare opportunity for a 14-year-old.

I can imagine how challenging the work will be.

The program is designed for students who might not otherwise be considering college as an option, said Jacob Perea, dean of the School of Education, who runs the Step to College program at San Francisco State.

"We're not really looking for the 4.4 (grade point average) students," he said. "We're looking for the 2.1 or 2.2 students."

Wait a second.  These are the ones who are going to do college-level work, at 14?  Am I reading this right.

Students cannot fail the class. They either receive a "pass" grade or are withdrawn from the course if it appears they cannot pass, Perea said.

Oh, so that's the trick. 

But can ninth-graders really produce college-level work?

Perea acknowledged that asking them to write at a 12th- or 13th-grade level could be difficult, but added: "I doubt that we've ever had a student come through the program who shouldn't have."

I'd be happy if they could write at their own level.

"I don't ever learn about the accomplishments and contributions of the people who look like me and the members of my family," said Balboa High School freshman Monet Cathrina-Rescat Wilson during public comment at Tuesday's school board meeting. "How can I know who I can be if I don't know who I am? Ethnic studies provides me with the foundation to learn who I am."

I'm sure she wrote that line herself.

Appalling. 

March 3, 2010    Permalink

EMERGING IRAQ – AT 8:49 A.M. ET:  Look, it's not going to be perfect, but, as the great Fouad Ajami writes, Iraq is emerging as a young democracy, and we can thank George W. Bush:

Forgive Vice President Joe Biden the audacity of claiming last month on CNN's "Larry King Live" that Iraq is destined to be "one of the great achievements of this administration." The larger point he made—that a representative government is taking hold in Baghdad—is on the mark.

As Iraq approaches its general elections on March 7, we should take yes for an answer. The American project in Iraq has midwifed that rarest of creatures in the Greater Middle East: a government that emerges out of the consent of the governed. We should trust the Iraqis with their own history. That means letting their electoral process play out against the background of the Arab dynasties and autocracies, and of the Iranian theocracy next door that made a mockery out of its own national elections.

Wonderfully stated.

Nor is it true that a sister republic of the Iranian theocracy is emerging in Baghdad, as some American officials have suggested. This is a slur on Iraq and Iraqis, and on the vast Shiite majority to be exact.

So Iran has designs on Iraq. Well what of it? A long border, the traffic of centuries in faith and commerce, runs between the two countries. But no Iraqi project in the offing contemplates making Iraq a satrap of the Persian state. The Iraqis are neither Lebanese seeking outside patronage, nor Palestinians in need of money and guns from foreign donors. They are a tough breed, they have their own material means, oil aplenty, and a determination to keep their country whole and theirs.

And...

Iraqis of all stripes are wary of Iran. In the provincial elections of 2009, pro-Iranian candidates were trounced and Iraqi nationalists carried the day.

There plays upon Iraqis the hope that their country can make its own way, defying the obituaries of doom written for their new order in neighboring lands and beyond. There is a transparent parliamentary culture in Iraq, and we for our part ought to be proud of what we have given birth to.

And let us not forget, as they take credit for all the good that's emerging, that the Obamans were dead set against our operations in Iraq.  Don't let them forget it, and don't let the American voter forget it.

Leave it to the Egyptians and the Arabs of the Peninsula and the Persian Gulf to belittle the new order in Iraq. They threw everything at it but it managed to survive. Peace has not settled upon Baghdad, but this Iraq, even in its current condition, is a rebuke to the dynasties and the dictatorships of the Arab world.

It is also a rebuke to the leftist intellectuals of America and Europe, including a number in the media and the academy.

Some miss the days when, they say, Saddam Hussein acted as a buffer to Iran:

There is a better way of "balancing" Iran: a regime in Baghdad endowed with the legitimacy of democratic norms. Of all that has been said about Iraq since the time that country became an American burden, nothing equals the stark formulation once offered by a diplomat not given to grandstanding and rhetorical flourishes. Said former U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker: "In the end, what we leave behind and how we leave will be more important than how we came."

We can already see the outline of what our labor has created: a representative government, a binational state of Arabs and Kurds, and a country that does not bend to the will of one man or one ruling clan.

COMMENT:  Don't expect Fouad Ajami's optimism to be taught to our college students, any more than our college students are taught what happened to South Vietnam after it was "liberated" by the North.  But the truth has a way of getting out.

March 3, 2010   Permalink

RANGEL AS HISTORY – AT 8:18 A.M. ET:  Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the committee that writes tax legislation, may soon be Mr. Former Tossed-Out Chairman.  The New York Times has the unemployment news:

WASHINGTON — Caught in a swirl of ethics inquiries, Representative Charles B. Rangel, the dean of the New York Congressional delegation, appeared to be losing his grip on his powerful post as chairman of the tax-policy-writing Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday as Republicans planned to force a vote to remove him from his position.

The House ethics committee last week admonished Mr. Rangel, an ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for violating Congressional gift rules by accepting corporate-sponsored trips to the Caribbean in 2007 and 2008.

The ethics panel is still investigating more serious accusations regarding Mr. Rangel’s fund-raising, his failure to pay federal taxes on rental income from a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic and his use of four rent-stabilized apartments provided by a Manhattan real estate developer.

And with Republicans preparing to force a vote Wednesday seeking to oust Mr. Rangel from his chairmanship, support among his fellow Democrats appeared to be crumbling. He huddled in a meeting with senior party leaders, including Ms. Pelosi, and officials said Democrats were urging him to step down, at least temporarily.

COMMENT:  The story notes that Rangel insists he isn't stepping down, but that's what they always say.  A number of stories this morning report that enthusiasm for among among fellow Democrats is worse than limited.  They're in a tough enough position before the November elections, and they don't need a scandal surrounding the guy in charge of our tax laws in the House.

I'd imagine a new chairman is being prepared.  Oh well, he'll still be a liberal.

March 3, 2010   Permalink

ECONOMIC WARNING – AT 7:49 A.M. ET:  The administration keeps telling us the economy is improving.  I'd like to see some hard evidence.  Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of economists is warning about another economic shock.  From what's left of ABC News:

Even as many Americans still struggle to recover from the country's worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, another crisis – one that will be even worse than the current one – is looming, according to a new report from a group of leading economists, financiers, and former federal regulators.

In the report, the panel, that includes Rob Johnson of the United Nations Commission of Experts on Finance and bailout watchdog Elizabeth Warren, warns that financial regulatory reform measures proposed by the Obama administration and Congress must be beefed up to prevent banks from continuing to engage in high risk investing that precipitated the near collapse of the U.S. economy in 2008.

The report warns that the country is now immersed in a "doomsday cycle" wherein banks use borrowed money to take massive risks in an attempt to pay big dividends to shareholders and big bonuses to management – and when the risks go wrong, the banks receive taxpayer bailouts from the government.

"Risk-taking at banks," the report cautions, "will soon be larger than ever."

COMMENT:  The Constitution tasks Congress with regulating interstate commerce.  Both parties agree that further regulation is needed, but they disagree on the form.  We have, by the way, received a number of warnings like the one above. 

It is true that Wall Street seems to be reverting to its old tricks.  We don't much like government intervention in the economy, but the Constitutional mandate must be carried out.  Clearly, there are powerful financial institutions whose irresponsibility contributed to the meltdown of 2008.  If carefully crafted regulation is required to prevent another obscenity, we'll have to pass it. 

This is one of those situations where a part of the enterprise system, often aided and abetted by reckless government-sponsored entitites like Fannie and Freddie, has failed the nation.  And once again they give the enemies of free enterprise all the ammunition they need.

March 3, 2010   Permalink

WE CANNOT WAIT, PINS AND NEEDLES TIME – AT 7:39 A.M. ET:  Obamacare, the Toyota of health-care plans, has apparently been recalled because of out-of-control acceleration of spending.  The White House promises to unveil Obamacare II today.

We are told, from various sources, that the plan will be 1) smaller than Obamacare; 2) the same size as Obamacare; 3) a compromise between the Senate and House versions; 4) no compromise; 5) will contain GOP ideas; 6) will contain only token mention of GOP ideas; 7) will save more money than the original; 8) will cost the same.

Maybe we should just wait for the unveiling, which is what one usually does with gravestones.  I think the comparison is apt.

The health-care mess reveals the unique inability of this White House to govern, which is presumably what winning elections is about.  But the Dem strategy is now obvious – to patch together something, almost anything, to pass some kind of bill, even if it means using reconciliation in the Senate to do so.

Don't underestimate these guys.  They do control both houses of Congress.  All they have to do is get a one-vote margin in the House, and use reconciliation in the Senate, and we may be stuck with a monster, despite overwhelming public opposition. 

We await the unveiling.

March 3,  2010   Permalink

TUESDAY,  MARCH 2,  2010

TEXAS RESULT – PERRY WINS EASILY – AT 11:25 P.M. ET:  From the L.A. Times:

Incumbent Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry scored an easy primary victory Tuesday against two women, GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and businesswoman Debra Medina, a favorite of Tea Party supporters.

Even before all the votes were counted Hutchison called Perry, a longtime intra-party foe, to concede, as it became apparent within minutes that he was going to achieve more than the 50% necessary to avoid a runoff with Hutchison.

with nearly three-quarters of a million votes already counted, Perry was pulling in nearly 53% while Hutchison had 31% and Medina only 17%.

The race drew special attention because of the intra-party competition and the third-wheel element of Medina as a measure of the Tea Party threat to Republican incumbents. If those numbers hold up, they show Perry having gained strength in the campaign's closing days, while his two opponents remained where recent polls put them.

COMMENT:  Perry had been expected to win, but was said to be in danger of coming in at slightly below 50%, forcing a runoff.  The runoff now won't be necessary.

Hutchison's poor showing does not bode well for her future.  She retains her Senate seat, although, as we reported earlier, she pledged to relinquish it whether she won or lost the primary.  Watch that pledge melt away.

March 2, 2010   Permalink

PLAYING WITH FIRE – AT 7:54 P.M. ET:  This isn't being discussed nearly enough:  President Obama, dancing with his party's left wing, wants drastic cuts in the nation's nuclear arsenal.  Given Obama's general foreign-policy views, would you trust this man with your nuclear future?  Australia's Sydney Morning Herald reports:

WASHINGTON: The US President plans ''dramatic reductions'' in the US nuclear weapon stockpile as part of a sweeping review designed to prove his commitment to the goal of global nuclear disarmament.

The news of Barack Obama's review emerged as negotiations to complete a US-Russia nuclear arms treaty stalled over a Russian demand for the option to withdraw unilaterally if Moscow determines that US missile defence would threaten its intercontinental nuclear missile force, a senior US official said.

The Obama administration, however, has rejected the Russian demand, fearing it could make it harder to win the Republican votes needed for Senate ratification of the new nuclear arms pact.

Huh?  Did we read that right?  The only reason the Obamans turned down the Russian demand is that it could complicate Senate ratification?  Are they serious?  It should be turned down because it's absurd.

Once again we see how naive these people are.  Or, maybe they're not naive.  Maybe this is what they really believe, which is just as chilling.

''The issue here is what do the Russians feel they need, but also keeping an eye on not trying to complicate the ratification process,'' said a senior US official.

How about what we need?  Do these Ivy League "sophisticates" ever consider that?  Geez.

Mr Obama discussed the review with his Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, on Monday. The review is due to be published in December but was delayed reportedly because Mr Obama did not consider it radical enough.

Set off the alarm bells.  Right now.  We hope that by December we'll have enough Republicans in the Senate to block any nutty treaties.  Treaties require two-thirds for ratification.

The latest complication centres on Mr Obama's decision to deploy US anti-missile interceptors in Romania as part of a plan to defend Europe against medium-range missile attacks from Iran.

''Russia has serious questions regarding the true purpose of the US missile defence in Romania,'' a Russian foreign ministry spokesman, Andrei Nesterenko, said on Friday.

COMMENT:  We must insist that the administration maintain its commitment to Romania.  If we start selling out small countries to feed the Russian bear, it will never end.  Ronald Reagan walked away from a treaty with Russia because Gorbachev insisted that we give up missile defense.  Reagan refused, and history has proved him right.

March 2, 2010   Permalink

TEXAS VOTES - AT 7:32 P.M. ET:  Today is Texas primary day.  We should have results within hours. 

The key race, for the GOP gubernatorial nomination, pits incumbent Governor Rick Perry against Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.  There is a third candiate - Debra Medina, more or less representing some of the Tea Partiers. 

Hutchison started well, but it's been mostly downhill.   She must keep Perry, the favorite, under 50% to force a runoff.  Medina also started well, and her support seemed to grow, but she weakened after seeming to imply that there might be some truth to the 9-11 truthers.  She backtracked, but the damage was done. 

The big surprise has been how poorly Hutchison's campaign has gone.  She will probably lose, diminishing her political standing generally, and in the Senate.  But, Texas being very red, the winner of the primary will probably win in November.

Hutchison promised that she would resign her Senate seat whether she won or lost in the gubernatorial race, but the betting is that she will withdraw the promise and rebuild her legacy.

March 2, 2010   Permalink

THE HEAT IS ON THE WARMERS – AT 7:16 P.M. ET:  In what could be a devastating blow to the global-warming establishment, a prestigious British society speaks out. 

The Institute of Physics, which represents 36,000 physicists across Britain and the world, has told a Commons inquiry into Climategate that the controversial emails at the centre of the storm represent "prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions".

In short, the IoP has called into question the integrity of the entire field of climate change.

The Commons science and technology committee is interviewing key climate scientists and global warming sceptics. The standard of the interrogation on the first day was tame and the protagonists merely restated their arguments.

The star witness, Professor Phil Jones - the CRU's head and the sender of most of the hacked emails - was let off particularly lightly, his most damning admission probably being: "I have obviously written some really awful emails."

Far more interesting are the written submissions to the inquiry, including that from the Institute of Physics.

Although it has been made abundantly clear that the inquiry is not about whether global warming is actually happening, the IoP criticises one of the fundamental slices of evidence behind the assertion that we are currently experiencing a period of unprecedented global warming.

COMMENT:  I'm sure the global warmers will charge that all 36,000 members of the Institute of Physics work for oil companies.  That's been the standard line.

We need more scientific bodies like the Institute to speak out and demand a full inquiry, by unimpeachable investigators, into the "science" of global warming.

March 2, 2010   Permalink

FASCINATING – AT 10:16 A.M. ET:  Barbara Boxer, running for reelection in California, may face a bit of bother, as the Capital Hill blog reports:

Mickey Kaus, neoliberal blogger at kausfiles, will take on Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., in the Democratic primary, according to LA Weekly. Kaus is a strong supporter of national health care, though he harshly criticized the White House "cost control" marketing strategy. However, he is a harsh critic of labor unions, a skeptic of affirmative action and an opponent of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Kaus is known for his honesty about the motivations of his allies, his opponents and himself. He’s also the pre-eminent user of exclamation points that are simultaneously ironic and nonironic. Kaus will have a hard time taking on Boxer and her union allies. But her poll numbers aren’t that hot. He might have a chance!

If he proves more than an irritant to Boxer, and forces her to emphasize her left-liberal viewpoints, Kaus could damage Boxer’s prospects in the general election.

COMMENT:  It's about time Boxer, whose brain is rarely bothered by facts or subtety, had some real competition.  She thinks she has a lifetime job.

March 2, 2010  Permalink

BULLETIN:  EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN – AT 9:29 A.M. ET:  Why do we hear the same story about Iran over and over?  Do we have a policy, or is it just the old game of kicking the can down the road?   From AFP:

BUENOS AIRES — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday it could take months for new UN sanctions against Iran, as she prepared for talks in Argentina and Brazil about the perceived Iranian nuclear threat.

Speaking on the plane to Buenos Aires, the chief US diplomat appeared to back away from her contention before the US Senate last week that a new resolution could be obtained in the "next 30 to 60 days."

We always seem to be backing away.  The administration's policy on Iran has, in more than a year, produced nothing.  China will not back strong sanctions, and the Russians are expressing deep skepticism.

"We are moving expeditiously and thoroughly in the Security Council. I can't give you an exact date, but I would assume sometime in the next several months," she said before landing in the Argentine capital..

...Clinton told reporters traveling with her that she expected to discuss Iran with for talks with Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, praising her stand on Iran.

"The Argentines have a very clear understanding of the dangers of the proliferation of nuclear weapons," Clinton said.

Boy, that's a relief.  I was really worried about the position of Argentina. 

Look, China is the key.  We may get a resolution in the Security Council, but it's likely to be watered down and ineffective.  Meanwhile, the Iranian nuclear program goes forward, uninhibited by anyone, and unhindered by a weak American government.   More change we can believe in.

March 2, 2010   Permalink

SOME GOOD NEWS ABOUT THE YOUNG, FOR A CHANGE – AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  The stereotype is that young people are radical, filled with contempt for their elders, and are ready to start a revolution in the name of Che, or whatever hero catches their fancy on Thursday.

But some anecdotal evidence is surfacing that suggests that conservatism is making a comeback among the young.  From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Civic involvement among politically aware young people is growing, based on attendance at the Feb. 18-20 Conservative Political Action Conference in the nation's capital.

Elementary, high school and college students who pre-registered for the conference accounted for 60 percent of the crowd, up 10 percent from 2009, said the event's director, Lisa De Pasquale. They wore business attire, but many could be seen connecting to social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook while mingling.

A recent Pew Research Center report said 40 percent of voters ages 18 to 28 lean Republican, up from 30 percent last year. Fifty-four percent of those voters said they lean Democratic, down from 62 percent last year.

That's very good, and probably based on disappointment that Obama didn't cure the world at one sitting.

Most people associate political activity and energy among young people with liberal candidates and causes, said Todd Gitlin, a Columbia University professor of sociology.

And a committed leftist.

Gitlin said it's hard to gauge from the Pew survey what is intensity and what is a trend toward conservatism. But he acknowledges the Obama administration isn't doing a good job of keeping young people engaged.

They're not doing a good job at keeping anyone engaged.

In the 2008 presidential election, voters ages 18 to 29 backed President Obama over Arizona Sen. John McCain by a 2-1 ratio. But that demographic did not show up to vote in the 2009 gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia. ABC News exit polling showed people younger than 30 accounted for 9 percent of the voters in New Jersey, down from 17 percent in November 2008, and 10 percent in Virginia, down from 21 percent in 2008.

The conservative values that attract young people appear to include limited government, with less emphasis on social issues, and a strong military.  That's why it's critical to keep the conservative movement clear of the crackpot fringe, which can only repel the young.

One young conservative activist said it best:

"It is not against Obama; it is for something better."

And that's the point.  Conservatives must stand for something.  It's not enough to be against the Obama health plan.  It's time for a new contract with America.  Let's spell it out.

March 2, 2010   Permalink

AL IS BACK, LET THE YAWNING BEGIN – AT 8:34 A.M. ET:  Little noticed, and for good reason, Al Gore surfaced over the weekend on The New York Times's op-ed page, arguing that nothing has changed in the science of global warming.

Not so fast, says Investors Business Daily.  Gore's "truth" may be inconvenient, but it isn't the truth:

If hyperbole and chutzpah had a child, it would be the opening paragraph of Gore's op-ed in Sunday's New York Times. Gore surfaced from the global warming witness-protection program to opine that despite admissions of error and evidence of fraud by various agencies, we still face "an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it."

Perhaps he's trying to protect his investments as he knows them, for he is heavily involved in enterprises that deal with carbon offsets and green technology. If the case for climate change is shown to be demonstrably false, a lot of his green evaporates like moisture from the ocean.

Wonderfully stated.  "Follow the money" used to be a principle of journalism.  Today it's "Follow the conservative money."

Interestingly, it's that moisture from the ocean that he uses to defend his failed hypothesis. The blizzards that have buried the Northeast, he writes, are proof of global warming because record evaporation due to warming is what produces record snows. Except that supporters of his theory not long ago argued exactly the opposite.

Hey, what's a little contradiction?  It's what makes a Georgetown party interesting.

He speaks of "recent attacks on the science of global warming." These presumably include the unearthing of e-mails between researchers associated with Britain's Climatic Research Unit that revealed an effort to discredit skeptics and deny them peer-review, the destruction and manipulation of data, and the use of "tricks" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures.

When you're saving the world, you have so little time for these obstructionists.

Exposure of the CRU e-mails was not an attack on science but an attempt to restore science to its rightful place.

Gore says the e-mails were "stolen." The New York Times used to call such revelations investigative journalism worthy of a Pulitzer Prize. We guess it depends on whose ox is, uh, gored. He says the CRU scientists were "besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics." That used to be called defending your thesis and proving your facts.

Finally...

As for the Himalayan fraud, Gore says it's one of "at least two mistakes in thousands of pages of careful scientific work" from the IPCC and its chief, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. Yet Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of IPCC's Fourth Assessment report, has admitted to the London Daily Mail that he knew the 2035 data were false, but included them in the report "purely to put political pressure on world leaders."

That's what it was all about, the creation of scary scenarios based on flawed computer models and manipulated data to promote government action and control. Now the curtain has been pulled back to reveal Al Gore shivering in the cold like the rest of us.

COMMENT:  As we've said here many times, what we too often get from the global-warming "community" isn't real science, but political science. 

The whole thing cries out for a major, neutral investigation of the "science" of global warming.  Considering who's in power in Washington, we're unlikely to get it.

March 2, 2010   Permalink

NO FORD IN OUR FUTURE – AT 7:41 A.M. ET:  Former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr., now residing in New York, has decided against challenging incumbent Senator Kirsten Gillibrand for the Democratic nomination for her Senate seat this year. 

Gillibrand was appointed by now scandal-scarred Governor David Paterson, who replaced scandal-scarred Governor Eliot Spitzer.  Gillibrand replaced scandal-scarred Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who became secretary of state in the mediocrity-scarred Obama administration.  Let's all put on a happy face.

With Ford parked in the political garage, Gillibrand has a clear field.  New York is a blue state, and she is almost a shoo-in for election, although very few people know her.  As usual, the moribund Republican Party of New York has yet to put forward a credible Senate candidate.  Rudy Giuliani has passed, apparently because his wife wants him at home.  And former Republican Governor George Pataki can't seem to decide whether to paint the bedroom or run for the Senate.  Theodore Roosevelt was considered, but is dead, although that may be an asset. 

So the GOP will probably forfeit a shot at a Senate seat.  It would be a long shot, but nowhere near as long as Scott Brown's shot in Massachusetts.  You know what happened there.

Does anyone know how to start a political party?

March 2, 2010   Permalink