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.

TO OUR READERS:  Please click on Urgent Agenda several times during the day.  We hope, in 2011, depending on the news, to put up at least one post during the afternoon hours, so there'll always be something new to read.  So visit us regularly.

JANUARY 16,  2011

WARNING ON IRAN – AT 9:46 P.M. ET:  As Gilda Radner used to say, it's always something.  Now the Russians are warning that Iran's damaged nuclear program can be dangerous.  From London's Telegraph:

Russian nuclear scientists are providing technical assistance to Iran's attempts activate the country's first nuclear power plant at the Gulf port.

But they have raised serious concerns about the extensive damage caused to the plant's computer systems by the mysterious Stuxnet virus, which was discovered last year and is widely believed to have been the result of a sophisticated joint US-Israeli cyber attack. According to Western intelligence reports, Russian scientists warned the Kremlin that they could be facing "another Chernobyl" if they were forced to comply with Iran's tight deadline to activate the complex this summer.

After decades of delays over the plant, which was first commissioned by the Shah in the 1970s, Iran's leaders are demanding that scientists stick to the schedule set last year. They argue that any delay would be a blow to Iran's international prestige.

COMMENT:  Then if something goes wrong, the Iranians can blame the U.S. and Israel, which is what they're culturally programmed to do anyway.

January 16, 2011     Permalink

SURPRISING RESULT – AT 11:17 A.M. ET:  We promised to report on whether President Obama's Tucson speech results in any improvement in his approval rating.  We said, based on yesterday's Rasmussen survey, that the improvement thus far was minimal.  Today, the president seems to slip back:

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

That's two points worse than yesterday.

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.

Also two points worse than yesterday, and the worst presidential showing in the Rasmussen poll since mid-December.

We stress that a poll is a snapshot in time, and that Rasmussen is only one poll.  But so far we've seen no evidence that the president has gained mightily from the Tucson appearance.

January 16, 201      Permalink

A TALE OF GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE – AT 11:05 A.M. ET:  The House this week will decide whether to repeal, symbolically, Obamacare.  Repeal will never make it into law because of Dem control of the Senate and the president's veto pen, but House action will send a powerful message.

We certainly don't claim here that all government health care is bad.  There are some good programs in a number of countries, and credit should always be given where it's due.  But there are also too many horror stories that warn us about depending on one source for health care.  Consider this, from London's Telegraph:

It was a bitterly cold night in January when Geraldine Weller gave birth in the car park of a London hospital. Three hours earlier, the maternity unit had sent her away. Midwives who said they were short-staffed had confidently told her that it would be "ages yet" before she went into labour. They maintained that view even as her husband made frantic phone calls, reporting from their Surrey home that the baby's head could now be seen.
In desperation, the couple ignored advice to stay put and drove back to the hospital. With her husband shouting into the security cameras of the maternity unit for help, Mrs Weller stepped from the passenger seat. As she did so, she gave birth to their first child, catching the newborn in one leg of her pyjamas.

She says: "We just huddled together. My husband came back and wrapped Henry in a bath towel, and finally one of the nurses came out and said: 'What's this?' "

One year on, Mrs Weller (not her real name) has a healthy child and deeply traumatic memories of Britain's maternity services. She is not alone. Last month, a survey of 25,000 women who had children in England last winter found that more than one in five was left alone during childbirth at a point when it worried them.

Today, an investigation by The Sunday Telegraph discloses widespread fears among health professionals that maternity services are sliding into crisis, as small units close, and funding fails to keep up with a decade-long baby boom.

COMMENT:  A good health-care program, like any other service, should provide alternatives.  When there are no alternatives, stories like the one above are inevitable.

January 16, 201      Permalink

AS THE WORM TURNS – AT 10:25 A.M. ET:   We said here several weeks ago that the most underreported story of 2010 was the Stuxnet virus, a computer worm that did enormous damage to the Iranian nuclear program, and set it back several years.  Now, in a piece of revealing reporting, The New York Times pieces together how the United States and Israel produced the worm and used it, in a program initiated by the Bush administration.  We hope that President Bush gets the credit he deserves for this contribution:

The Dimona complex in the Negev desert is famous as the heavily guarded heart of Israel’s never-acknowledged nuclear arms program, where neat rows of factories make atomic fuel for the arsenal.

Over the past two years, according to intelligence and military experts familiar with its operations, Dimona has taken on a new, equally secret role — as a critical testing ground in a joint American and Israeli effort to undermine Iran’s efforts to make a bomb of its own.

Behind Dimona’s barbed wire, the experts say, Israel has spun nuclear centrifuges virtually identical to Iran’s at Natanz, where Iranian scientists are struggling to enrich uranium. They say Dimona tested the effectiveness of the Stuxnet computer worm, a destructive program that appears to have wiped out roughly a fifth of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges and helped delay, though not destroy, Tehran’s ability to make its first nuclear arms.

COMMENT:  This is a great detective story, and well worth reading.  It also shows what two allies, working together, can accomplish.  Compare please with our "alliance" with Pakistan or even some European countries.

January 16, 201      Permalink

SNEAKY, SNEAKY – AT 10:09 A.M. ET:  One of the less attractive characteristics of the Obama administration is the tendency to reward hostile foreign nations when they've done absolutely nothing to earn the reward.  Thus, an American ambassador now returns to Syria, even though Syria has done nothing to earn our respect.  And, during this last week of national mourning, President Obama eased travel restrictions on Cuba.  Cuban-American leaders are furious, as Fox News reports:

Republican lawmakers of Cuban descent sharply criticized President Obama's plans to loosen Cuban travel policy to allow students and church groups to go to the communist country, saying the changes will benefit the Castro regime while doing little for the average citizen.

"Loosening these regulations will not help foster a pro-democracy environment in Cuba," said U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "These changes will not aid in ushering in respect for human rights. And they certainly will not help the Cuban people free themselves from the tyranny that engulfs them."

"These changes undermine U.S. foreign policy and security objectives and will bring economic benefits to the Cuban regime," she added.

The administration announced Friday that students seeking academic credit and churches traveling for religious purposes will be able to go to Cuba. The plan will also let any American send as much as $500 every three months to Cuban citizens who are not part of the Castro administration and are not members of the Communist Party.

New Senator Marco Rubio of Floriday also dissented:

"I strongly oppose any new changes that weaken U.S. policy towards Cuba," Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida said in a statement. "I was opposed to the changes that have already been made by this administration and I oppose these new changes."

"I believe that what does need to change are the Cuban regime's repressive policies towards the independent press and labor unions, it's imprisonment of political prisoners and constant harassments of citizens with dissenting views, and its refusal to allow free multi-party elections," he added.

Even a prominent Democratic senator was appalled:

"I am deeply disappointed by President Obama's decision today to extend an economic life line to the Castro regime," said Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey. "This gift to the Castro brothers will provide the regime with the additional resources it needs to sustain its failing economy, while ordinary Cubans continue to struggle under the weight of more than 50 years of economic and political oppression."

COMMENT:  It's a big mistake on the part of the Obama administration.  Once again the signal is sent that we can be rolled.  The fact that an American ambassador is returning to Syria after five years, with no major concessions from the Syrian regime, indicates that the appeasement faction is still alive and well in the Obama White House, despite some tough words from Hillary Clinton in the past week.

Are there two Barack Obamas, one the left winger, the other the election-time moderate?  I believe there are.  We'll be presented with a moderate face as we enter the 2012 election cycle.  Buyer beware.

January 16, 2011     Permalink

JANUARY 15,  2011

OBAMA APPROVAL – AT 8:51 P.M. ET:  Today's Rasmussen tracker shows some improvement for the president, but not as much as one might expect, considering the fact that Americans generally rally 'round the leader in times of stress: 

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12...

...Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.

COMMENT: Obama shows some strengthening in the "strongly approve, strongly disapprove" rating.  But the seven-point spread in overall approval/disapproval is pretty consistent with what we've seen in recent months. 

By Tuesday, Rasmussen will have done all his tracking in the days after the president's Tucson speech.  We'll check the numbers again.

January 15, 2010      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 12:18 P.M. ET:

Actual headline from a Swedish newspaper yesterday:

NEW SWEDISH FILM PUTS SEX BACK ON THE MAP

Look, I don't want to take credit away from anyone.  But...but...what map have they been using in Sweden?  Was it the one where sex was taken off?  Where could you buy this map?  Rand McNally?

January 15, 2010       Permalink

NEW MEDIA SCANDAL? – AT 11:38 A.M. ET:  With all that's been happening, a fascinating media story has been downplayed by the press.  A miniseries about the Kennedys, developed for the History Channel, has been rejected by that outlet, and there are cries of censorship.  From the Scotsman:

America's most iconic political dynasty is at the centre of a censorship scandal after a TV network suddenly dropped a multi-million dollar series giving a warts-and-all look at the lives of the Kennedy clan.

Those behind the project believe members of the family "bullied" The History Channel into axing The Kennedys after objecting to the way the drama portrayed the private life and sexual escapades of assassinated president John F Kennedy.

And they claim the Kennedys have called in favours to prevent the eight-part show, starring Katie Holmes as JFK's wife Jackie, from being aired in the US.

The network Showtime became the latest to reject the project, declaring it to be "well-acted and well-produced" but that "it doesn't fit the Showtime brand."  The same claim was made by The History Channel when it pulled the plug.

The furious director of Muse Entertainment, the Canadian company that filmed the series, said he believed the networks rejected it for political reasons.

"I doubt they've even seen it. They're objecting to it before it started," John Cassar said.

Showtime's subsequent decision not to pick up the series is seen as particularly disingenuous, given that it aired The Reagans when CBS dropped it in 2003 after criticism that the documentary-drama portrayed former US president Ronald Reagan in an unfavourable light.

Actually, CBS dropped it after agreeing that the Reagan series was wildly inaccurate and mean-spirited.  Showtime picked it up.  The series was a farce.

Respected industry newspaper the Hollywood Reporter said two prominent Kennedy family members had driven a campaign to get the series scrapped.

It claimed Caroline Kennedy, JFK's last surviving child, and Maria Shriver, daughter of his sister Eunice and wife of Arnold Schwarzenegger, had used their influence in the broadcasting world to get their way, personally lobbying a Disney executive and a senior figure at NBC and A&E Television Networks, the parent of The History Channel.

Ms Shriver was an award-winning journalist with NBC, and Ms Kennedy has a book deal with a Disney-owned publisher for a collection of previously unreleased interviews with her father. Disney and NBC are part of a consortium that owns AETN.

COMMENT:  I've never had any problem with people raising objections to television productions, even before they're broadcast.  If they have a legitimate gripe, they have a perfect right to protest.  That was done, appropriately, in the Reagan case, when it became clear that the miniseries would be nothing but a Hollywood leftist hit job.  CBS made the right decision in dropping it.

Nor do I agree with the charge of "censorship," in the Reagan case or in this one.  Censorship is something done by an outside authority, which says, "You may not..."   There is no outside authority here.

However, the cancellation of the Kennedy series is particularly heavy-handed, and Showtime's rejection, after showing the awful Reagan miniseries, seems awfully hypocritical.  Mr. Kennedy's personal defects are well known.  They will not come as a shock to anyone.

I haven't seen the series, nor have I read the script.  The producer is a conservative, which may have prompted some of the objections.  I hope some small outlet picks up the production so American viewers can judge for themselves. Maybe the Fox network will step up.  At the very minimum, the script should be published so media observers can read it.

January 15, 2010       Permalink

RAHM UNDER SIEGE – AT 10:41 A.M. ET:  Rahm Emanuel is the frontrunner in the race for mayor of Chicago.  The election is February 22nd.  If no one gets 50%, a runoff will be held in the spring.

The contest has turned openly racial.  Chicago is, racially, still in the 1960s, with the large presence of Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan.  And, ironically, it is Rahm's service as Obama's chief of staff that is being held against him.  This, from a well-reported Washington Post story, is incredible:

As Rahm Emanuel prepared to leave Washington last year to run for mayor of Chicago, President Obama gave his chief of staff an emotional send-off in the East Room. He praised Emanuel for his service and pulled him in for multiple hugs. Emanuel would be a "terrific" mayor, the president predicted in a television interview.

In the months since, Emanuel's close relationship with Obama - who is still enormously popular in his home town - helped to make the former congressman an easy front-runner in the race.

Now Emanuel's rivals are trying to turn those presidential ties against him. African American and Hispanic leaders inside and outside Chicago are lining up against Emanuel as a way to vent their long-simmering complaints that Obama has not done enough to help their communities. In recent weeks, Obama's record as president has become a major undercurrent in the campaign.

Rep. Bobby Rush (D), whose district includes Chicago's South Side and who defeated Obama in a bruising 2000 House primary, said many of his colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus "harbor major resentment" against Emanuel for what they see as his lack of concern about minority issues. That, Rush said, has made Emanuel a "convenient target" for broader frustrations with the White House...

...The mayor's contest has become polarized along ethnic lines in the past two weeks as many black establishment politicians have coalesced around the candidacy of former senator Carol Moseley Braun. A Chicago native who served one term in Washington, in the 1990s, she is the only African American woman elected to the Senate.

COMMENT:  The state of black politics in Chicago can be judged by the coalescing around Moseley Braun, a corruptionist and hopeless mediocrity.  There are serious questions about her tax returns and investment practices.  As a senator she was a joke.  Her only qualification seems to be race.

It's gotten rough in Chicago.  Bill Clinton wants to come to town to campaign for Emanuel, but several black politicians have threatened him, saying that would alienate the black community.  He's coming anyway.

Chicago, where I went to school, is stuck in the past politically.  Its South Side is a shooting gallery, with a heartbreaking number of black children murdered every year.  While New York has largely addressed street violence, Chicago seems incapable.

Whoever becomes mayor has the task of moving the city into the 21st century, something that may be impossible with the sixties-style racial politics still being played.

January 15, 2010      Permalink

TUNISIA REVOLUTION – AT 10:20 A.M. ET:  I think this is the first time we've ever mentioned Tunisia, a North African Arab country, at Urgent Agenda.  The country has just had a revolution, a warning sign to Arab autocrats throughout the Mideast.  From Fox:

Tunisia has sworn in a new interim president and he has asked the prime minister to form a unity government.

Longtime autocratic ruler President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled the country Friday for Saudi Arabia following a popular uprising and deadly riots.

Fouad Mebazaa, the former president of the lower house of parliament, was sworn in as chief of state on Saturday. He says he asked the premier to form a "national unity government in the country's best interests."

Mebazaa said in his first televised address that all political parties including the opposition will be consulted "without exception nor exclusion."

COMMENT:  Unrest is continuing.  Maybe Hillary Clinton had an inkling of what was about to happen when she denounced oppression in the Arab world several days ago.

Bringing down a government through popular revolt is an enormous development in an Arab country, even one not generally in the middle of Mideast disputes.  Will it affect other authoritarian regimes?  Too early to say, but there is clearly dissatisfaction in other Arab states.

There is potential for good here, but also, as my friend Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi points out, potential for tragedy.  Too often, when Arab populations have had a shot at democracy, they've gone to the polls and elected Islamic extremists.  Look what happened with the Palestinians in Gaza, who elected the extremist group, Hamas.  And even in Iraq, which we liberated, the nuts still have a large popular following.

So we'll have to wait and see if an Arab country can pull off a truly democratic revolution this time.  And let's see if "human rights" groups show the slightest interest.

January 15, 2010     Permalink