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 26,  2011

LOOK, IT'S MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE THAN AN AIR TICKET – AT 8:34 P.M. ET:  Another traveler arrives in America.  From the Los Angeles Times:

U.S. border authorities have arrested a controversial Muslim cleric who was deported from Canada to Tunisia three years ago and was caught earlier this month trying to sneak into California inside the trunk of a BMW, according to court documents.

At least he got to ride in a luxury car.

Said Jaziri, the former Imam of a Muslim congregation in Montreal, was hidden inside a car driven by a San Diego-area man who was pulled over by U.S. Border Patrol agents near an Indian casino east of San Diego. Jaziri allegedly paid a Tijuana-based smuggling group $5,000 to get him across the border near Tecate, saying he wanted to be taken to a “safe place anywhere in the U.S.”

The arrest marks the unexpected resurfacing of the 43-year-old cleric, whose protracted legal battle to avoid deportation drew headlines in Canada. A Tunisian immigrant, Jaziri was deported for failing to disclose a criminal conviction in France while applying for refugee status in the mid-1990s.

But Jaziri’s supporters said he was targeted for his fundamentalist views: Jaziri backed Sharia law for Canadian Muslims and led protests over the publication of the prophet Muhammad cartoons in a Danish newspaper in 2006.

Another champion of freedom of the press.

Jaziri is being held as a material witness in the criminal case against the BMW’s driver, Kenneth Robert Lawler, who has been charged with immigrant smuggling. He is at the San Luis Detention Facility near Yuma, Ariz., according to his attorney, Wayne Charles Mayer. His bond has been set at $25,000.

COMMENT:  As an act of compassion, someone should tell the imam what rights he has as an illegal immigrant to California.  Education.  Social welfare.  The latest plastic surgery.  Let's show that this isn't a war against Islam.

January 26, 2011      Permalink

THE UNNOTICED MOMENT – AT 7:06 P.M. ET:  You've all been reading analyses of the State of the Union message, even though it's already been forgotten.  The 24-hour news cycle requires endless coverage of the same story, if only a speech.

Overall, my reading of the punditocracy is 1) the speech was highly political, 2) designed to position Mr. Obama for 2012;  2) it was well delivered and seemed to make an initial positive impression on the American people, if most flash polls are to be believed; 3) but it lacked detail and tended to be a desirable laundry list with no means of paying for it.

In addition, many pundits criticized the president for the thinness of his foreign-policy comments.

I'd like to bring up something else, and I'm surprised no one has noticed it:  There was a point in the speech when the president spoke of the probability of some cuts in the defense budget.  This was unsurprising.  But then he said that some people wanted even deeper cuts.  There was an immediate burst of applause, and it was not from a small number of people.  What we heard was the left wing of the Democratic Party in the House and Senate, the wing that now firmly controls the party, the wing that has little or no interest in national defense.

When Harry S. Truman ran in 1948, he confronted the segregationist wing of his party, which promptly walked out of the Democratic National Convention and backed Strom Thurmond in his third-party bid for president.  What many don't recall is that Truman also confronted the small, but vociferous hard left of his party, refusing to bow to their demands for appeasement of their darling Soviet Union.  Truman's ally in this struggle was Eleanor Roosevelt.  The hard left, following the segregationists, also bolted the party and backed Henry Wallace, who had been Franklin D. Roosevelt's third-term vice president, for president.

The leftists, and their spiritual heirs, eventually drifted back into the Democratic Party in the sixties, some to oppose the Vietnam War, others as part of the civil-rights and feminist movements.  They gained control of the party in 1972 with their nomination of George McGovern, and they have been a significant force ever since, coming into their own with the election of Barack Obama in 2008.  They are far out of the mainstream, representing perhaps 18-20% of the American people.  They oppose the war on terror, or any other war America might fight, favor the nanny state, and believe that democracy is the thing that happens when they win. 

The fullness of that applause – applause for the further disarming of America – was frightening.  These people must be defeated, for the future of this country depends on it.

January 26, 2011      Permalink

A TALE OF TWO ECONOMIES – AT 6:32 P.M. ET:  There is the Wall Street economy, and then there's the real economy, and they are not meeting, which is dangerous:

From CNBC:

The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 8.25 points, or 0.07 percent, to close at 11,985.44, ending below the psychologically important 12,000 level after rising as high as 12,020.52 during the session. It was still the highest close for the Dow since June 19, 2008, which was the last day the Dow closed above the benchmark.

And...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Buyers purchased the fewest number of new homes last year on records going back 47 years.

Sales for all of 2010 totaled 321,000, a drop of 14.4 percent from the 375,000 homes sold in 2009, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. It was the fifth consecutive year that sales have declined after hitting record highs for the five previous years when the housing market was booming.

COMMENT:  Gee, I thought Democratic administrations helped the average guy.  Did I miss something?  And wasn't Obama the man of the people?  Did I miss something there, too?

I'd better read between the lines.

January 26, 2011      Permalink

INEXCUSABLE – AT 10:01 A.M. ET:  I like Michelle Bachmann.  She's a smart, attractive lawyer and Republican member of Congress.  She's far better informed than another attractive Republican I like, Sarah Palin.  True, she has a history of making gaffes, but she seems to have brought that problem under control.

However, Bachmann's decision to give a televised response to the State of the Union address last night, speaking on behalf of the Tea Party, was ill-considered.   It turned her from a potential national leader into a rogue politician, speaking for a militant faction.  Paul Ryan gave the official Republican response, and Bachmann, perhaps unintentionally, undercut him.  There must be a unified response.

Bachmann tried to get into the GOP House leadership, and was turned down.  Inevitably, some observers are now saying that she harbors a grudge, thus her own rogue role last night.

In addition, she strangely seemed to be looking away during her remarks, not into the camera, ruining the chance of any real, human connection with the TV audience.  That has now been explained.  It turns out that there were two cameras, one provided by the Tea Party for its own video streaming, the other the pool camera for the TV networks.  Bachmann chose the Tea Party lens, a mistake in terms of numbers of potential viewers.

The camera issue was inexcusable.  The chance to address a TV audience is rare for any politician, and to have it botched by camera confusion simply doesn't happen in the grown-up leagues.

The GOP leadership must now sit down with the Tea Partiers and stress the need for unity, a unity absolutely vital if we have any chance at all of unseating Barack Obama in 2012.  And Michelle Bachmann, who has many gifts, must determine her own role.  The ideal role would be a bridge between Tea Partiers and the GOP establishment, with an eye toward strengthening the conservative cause.

And no more camera problems.

January 26, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 9:40 A.M. ET:

From Andrew Breitbart's Big Peace:  We reported earlier that Lauren Booth, sister-in-law of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, had converted to Islam. Now she is touring Muslim countries with a radical group called Viva Palestina demanding that her in-law by tried for the invasion of Iraq. (The fact that Saddam Hussein regularly killed devout Muslims who opposed his rule doesn’t seem to factor into her thinking.) Oh, and she also says that it’s Western women who are oppressed. She learned that tidbit in Iran. It appears to me that her “conversion” has less to do with a religious experience and more to do with joining a cult.

Family dinner will really be fun for the Blairs.  Wish we were there.

January 26, 2011      Permalink

FLUNKING SCIENCE – AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  Well, the president was right on one thing last night...we are falling behind in science.  And one reason is that our schools either aren't teaching it very well, or our kids aren't learning it, or both.  From AP:

UNITED STATES - Scores released Tuesday from the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress indicate there are still vast numbers of students with rudimentary levels of science knowledge.

Just 1 percent of high school seniors scored at the advanced level. Twenty-one percent scored as proficient, while another 40 percent were considered below basic.

The test was updated in 2009 and couldn't be compared with previous years.

A member of the board that oversees the exam says the low number of advanced-level students means there is a small pipeline of those likely to pursue science and technology careers.

And yet, as Michelle Malkin points out, in a fine piece of reporting, there really is no money shortage, no "investment" shortage in our educational system:

Our government already spends more per capita on education than any other of the 34 wealthiest countries in the world except for Switzerland, according to recent analysis of data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Overall inflation-adjusted K-12 spending has tripled over the past 40 years, the Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy points out. Yet American test scores and graduation rates are stagnant. One in 10 high schools is a dropout factory. And our students’ performance in one of the most prestigious global math competitions has been so abysmal that the U.S. simply withdrew altogether.

Maybe, shock, we should ask how the money is being spent.  Oh, excuse me.  We can't do that.  It would be oppressive.  It would also violate the sanctity of "academic freedom."  And, Heaven forbid, it might do violence to our respect for "cultural choices." 

What Malkin's statistics prove is that money is not the answer to educational mediocrity.  Educational excellence is the answer.  And educational excellence isn't what most schools are about. 

We might add that teacher-training schools are often more concerned about instilling leftist ideas in future teachers than in training them to instill high standards.  Why should we be surprised at the result?

January 26, 2011      Permalink

THE KING'S SPEECH – AT 8:48 A.M. ET:  They are noticing.  Some pundits are waking up to the reality that the president of the United States had so little to say about foreign policy in his speech last night.  It is shocking.  Foreign policy is the province of the president, and he is commander-in-chief of a military at war.  Yet foreign policy seemed like a footnote at the end of the State of the Union.  If we are attacked again in this country, it won't be because we don't have high-speed rail, but you'd never know it.

Jackson Diehl, at the Washington Post:

The focus of this State of the Union address was domestic rather than foreign -- and perhaps properly so, given Americans' continuing preoccupation with the economy. Even in that context, though, President Obama's portrait of U.S. engagement in the world was thin -- and weak.

By Obama's account, the most important American foreign initiatives in 2011 will be retreats -- the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. The president portrayed the two wars not as vital missions but as loose ends to be wrapped up. In Iraq, he said, "we finish the job of bringing our troops out" -- even though Iraq's pro-Western parties, such as the Kurds, would like at least some American soldiers to stay. In Afghanistan, "we will begin to bring our troops home." Never mind defeating the Taliban -- Obama didn't set that goal.

What of Middle East peace, a great focus of Obama's first two years? The president didn't mention it. Nor did he discuss the spreading popular unrest in the Arab Middle East, other than to say that the United States "stands with the people of Tunisia," whatever that might mean. The efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and North Korea from expanding its arsenal, were covered with perfunctory phrases.

And British observer Nile Gardiner, whom we've often quoted:

For the second year running, President Obama has demonstrated that he is no world leader, and frankly has little interest at all in foreign policy.

The war in Afghanistan was barely a blip on the president’s teleprompter. With over 100,000 American troops on the ground fighting the Taliban in defence of the United States and the free world, one would have expected the president to have dedicated more than a miserly 132 words to the war effort and the stakes involved. There was no sense from the president of a plan for victory in Afghanistan, or the wider importance of the conflict within the context of a global war against Islamist terrorism, which he resolutely refuses to even identify.

Similarly, the Iranian nuclear crisis, arguably the biggest foreign policy challenge facing the Obama administration in 2011, was barely mentioned, meriting a single, rather pathetic line in the speech. Nor was there any declaration of support for dissidents in Iran, or a clear signal that the United States stands with those who are being brutally suppressed by the Islamist dictatorship.

Again in a major speech, Barack Obama has shied away from taking a clear stand on human rights issues, in marked contrast to predecessors including George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. The plight of hundreds of millions living under tyranny, from Burma to Zimbabwe to North Korea, was ignored altogether. No US administration in living memory has paid less attention to the spread of liberty and freedom across the world than the Obama presidency, and this was glaringly apparent in Obama’s State of the Union address.

COMMENT:  Accurate comments, but will the president's foreign-policy debacle have much effect at the polls in 2012?  Absent an attack on our soil, I would tend to doubt it.  Americans are focused on the economy.

Historians have pointed out that the Great Depression of the 1930s was one of the causes of World War II, because citizens of the democracies were so focused on their economic plight, and had little patience for discussion of the military buildup in fascist countries.  History doesn't repeat itself, but the psychology of history repeats itself, and that is what we might be seeing.  The attacks of 9-11 have faded into memory, and Americans are being lulled into complacency once again.

January 26, 2011      Permalink

WHILE WE SLEEP – AT 8:29 A.M. ET:  We've been focusing on the State of the Union speech, but much has been happening in the Middle East, and much of it can cause dangerous convulsions.  Once again, the "reach out" administration has been caught off guard, and has been reaching out to the wrong people.  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration confronts the spectacle of angry protesters and baton-wielding riot police officers from Tunisia to Egypt to Lebanon, it is groping for a plan to deal with an always-vexing region that is now suddenly spinning in dangerous directions.

In Egypt, where a staunch ally, President Hosni Mubarak, faced the fiercest protests in years on Tuesday, and Lebanon, where a Hezbollah-backed government is taking shape, the administration is grappling with volatile, potentially hostile forces that have already realigned the region’s political landscape.

Add Tunisia, where a popular revolt overthrew the government.  The president, in his speech last night, finally got around to supporting the people against the dictator, but it was an afterthought...the same mistake he made in being too slow to support the Iranian people in their uprising against the mullahs.

These were surprising turns. But even the administration’s signature project in the region — Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations — became even more intractable this week, with the publication of confidential documents detailing Palestinian concessions offered in talks with Israel. The disclosure makes it less likely that the Palestinians will agree to any further concessions.

In interviews in recent days, officials acknowledged that the United States had limited influence over many actors in the region, and that the upheaval in Egypt, in particular, could scramble its foreign-policy agenda.

What?  We have limited influence?  Even with a demigod in the White House?  Why, why, I'm crushed.  Weren't we told that this president could wave his hand across the landscape and change the world?  Weren't the oceans going to recede right after Inauguration Day? 

No.

Our foreign policy in the Mideast is falling apart.  We don't seem to have one in Latin America, and the North Koreans get away with what they want to get away with.  China seems similarly unimpressed with godliness at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

A very bump year coming up.

January 26, 2011     Permalink

JANUARY 25,  2011

10:55 P.M. ET:  Bachmann is finished.  She went a bit over the top in flag waving toward the end, and she was far more partisan than Paul Ryan.  A wash, I'd say.

10:51 P.M. ET:  Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota is now giving a response to the president on behalf of the congressional Tea Party caucus.  I think this is a very bad idea.  The opposition response should be unified.  Having a separate Tea Party response gives the impression of a divided opposition.

Bachmann is an intelligent, attractive woman who, at times, has been gaffe-prone.  Her response tonight is fine, but is technically flawed.  She isn't looking into the camera, bonding with the audience.  She's looking to the side, apparently reading from a teleprompter, and it destroys the connection.  This should have been corrected in rehearsal.

10:35 P.M. ET:  Ryan is finished.  A workmanlike speech from a man who does his homework.  It needed a spiritual lift, though.  Ryan will learn.  He has great talent.

10:30 P.M. ET:  Ryan is making a strong anti-government-expansion speech.  His arguments are powerful, but he needs to provide some inspiration, some vision of the future.  It's important that a leader not come off as simply a bookkeeper.  But he's awfully knowledgeable.

10:28 P.M. ET:  Ryan is attacking the Obama economic record, accusing the president of plunging the nation into deep debt. 

Ryan speaks well, and knows his stuff.  He comes off as young, maybe a man who will be at his prime in about four or six years. 

10:25 P.M. ET:  Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is now giving the Republican response.  He begins with a tribute to Gabby Giffords. 

First impression of the speech:  Well delivered, something of a campaign speech, but with no details.  It's hard to know exactly what the president actually plans.  I was glad to see a tilt toward American exceptionalism, and toward optimism.   Obama may be influenced by Reagan. 

State of the Union speeches are quickly forgotten.  The real business starts tomorrow morning. 

What clearly comes out of this speech, though, is how difficult Obama will be to defeat in 2012.  He is a superb campaigner, and has the ability to appeal, at least in speeches, to those in the middle, despite his own real views.  Don't underestimate this challenge.

10:13 P.M. ET:  The president concludes by an inspirational story of how an American company helped with the rescue of the the Chilean coal miners

The speech is over.  Mr. Obama did not introduce anyone associated with the Arizona shootings, which was a surprise, but was all to the better.  It would have smacked of exploitation. 

10:03 P.M. ET:  The president praises the end of "don't ask, don't tell" in the military, but then correctly asks all colleges and universities to open their doors to military recruiters and ROTC programs.  

10:03 P.M. ET:  Mr. Obama glosses over the clear setbacks in our foreign policy, especially on the Korean peninsula and in our attempts to rein in Iran.

10:01 P.M. ET:  The president talks about winding down operations in Iraq, but again gives no credit to his predecessor for making it possible.

He talks tough on terror, which is good, and continues the commitment to Afghanistan, while still saying that American troops will start returning from Afghanistan this year.  This is confusing because we've just sent additional troops, and no one seriously believes the fight is won.

9:59 P.M. ET:  Mr. Obama turns to foreign policy, and says American leadership has been restored.  This is a discordant note because it simply isn't true.  Our leadership has faltered, and our strength is questioned.  I hope the president can do better than this.

9:58 P.M. ET:  President says he will veto any legislation with earmarks.  Why don't I think so?

9:51 P.M. ET:  Surprise.  The president proposes reform of medical malpractice lawsuits.  Good.  Now let's see the details.

9:44 P.M. ET:  Some very shrewd writing here.  The president says he will work to eliminate unnecessary regulations that burden business.  On the other hand, he says he will continue to work to protect Americans...and lists some good things that government has done, like child labor laws.

Republicans must understand how powerful that argument is.  In truth, industry has sometimes fumbled, and somethings been irresponsible, and government has stepped in.  Eisenhower understood that.  Reagan understood that, and promised to maintain the American safety net.  Today's Republicans must be sensitive to things that Eisenhower and Reagan understood so well.  Conservatism must never mean callousness.

9:40 P.M. ET:  On balance, this is a good speech...so far.  Talking about new technology and providing a high-tech vision of the future always works.  We need the details, though.

The president now talks about reforming the tax codes to level the playing field for businesses and lower the corporate tax. 

9:37 P.M. ET:  The president now asks for us to work toward solving the issue of illegal immigration.  I see movement here, less ideological militancy.  He stresses the need to secure the borders and enforce the laws.  If he's serious, some reasonable solutions can be found.  But we never again want to see the president of the United States standing next to the president of Mexico, as Obama did, while the Mexican guy criticizes our laws.

9:29 P.M. ET:  Now the president is talking about the need to invest in education.  Okay, again, nothing very objectionable about what he's saying, but there's nothing new either.  Of course we have to invest in education.  But it would be nice to get some results for the billions spent.

9:26 P.M. ET:  Obama is talking about the need to invest in the future, especially in science and technology.  Nothing is objectionable here, but there are few details.

First controversial proposal:  The president proposes eliminating subsidies to oil companies, so the billions can be devoted to new energy sources.  However, the idea of "new energy sources" is vague, as many "new" ideas never materialize.  In what do we invest?

9:17 P.M. ET:  President begins with a call to civility, and even invokes American exceptionalism, that we are different from other nations.  Congratulations, Mr. President.  We didn't think you'd noticed.

9:11 P.M. ET:  The president has entered and has been introduced by the new Republican speaker, John Boehner.  Democrats did not break out into tears.  A little bit o'progress.

9:01 P.M. ET:  Members of Congress are seated, some members sitting with members of the opposite party.  I have observed no inappropriate behavior or vulgar groping. 

Six Supreme Court justices are present.  Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have wisely decided to do something useful.

The Cabinet has entered.  Hillary Clinton, president-in-waiting, gets the most attention.

9:00 P.M. ET:  WE NOW BEGIN OUR LIVE BLOGGING OF THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE. 

THE LUNATIC CORNER, PART II – AT 6:19 P.M. ET:  Do I detect the beginning of a little backbone from our delegation to the UN?  I certainly hope so.  But this case is so outrageous that it could make even our UN ambassador develop some backbone. 

The House today begins hearings on American participation in the UN's Human Rights Council, one of the most degenerate bodies in the UN, and that's saying a great deal.  George W. Bush wouldn't let this country participate in the Council, citing its bias and corruption.  Obama reversed that position, arguing – a child's argument – that we could influence the HRC by becoming a member.  That's like saying you can reform the Mafia by joining up.

The Council appointed one Richard Falk as an "expert" to investigate aspects of the Israeli/Palestinian dispute.  The painstream media described Falk as a "retired Princeton professor," never giving any more details.  But Falk is much, much more, and the much more has now erupted into a scandal.  From The Jerusalem Post:

NEW YORK – In a letter to a leader of a Geneva-based NGO that watches UN activity, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s office condemned Human Rights Council member Richard Falk for his remarks on 9/11, calling his views “preposterous.”

Just prior to Tuesday’s US Congressional hearing into the UN Human Rights Council, the secretary-general’s office sent a letter which "condemned" the Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur Falk for his "preposterous" comments questioning whether the 9/11 terrorist attacks were orchestrated by the US government.

Just a retired Princeton professor.

The Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch had called on the UN chief to condemn and remove Falk, after Falk’s controversial blog posting in which he endorsed a book by 9/11 conspiracy theorist David Ray Griffin, calling it “authoritative,” and wrote of an “apparent cover up” in which the Bush administration, rather than Al-Qaida, was responsible for the attacks.

UN Watch’s call for Falk’s resignation has been echoed by the New York Daily News, which asked in an editorial last Friday, “When will the lunacy reach such heights that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon realizes his so-called Human Rights Council is wrecking what little reputation the world body has left?”

US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice released a statement Tuesday calling Falk's remarks endorsing "the slurs of conspiracy theorists" "despicable," and registering a strong protest on the US's behalf to the UN.

"The United States has in the past been critical of Mr. Falk's one-sided and politicized approach to his work for the UN, including his failure to condemn deliberate human rights abuses by Hamas, but these blog comments are in another category altogether," Rice's statement read.

"In my view, Mr. Falk's latest commentary is so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he should no longer continue in his position on behalf of the UN," Rice stated. "I would note that U.S. and many other diplomats walked out in protest in September 2010 when Iranian President Ahmadinejad made similarly slanderous remarks before the UN General Assembly."

COMMENT:  We applaud Rice's comments.  Now it's time for journalism to examine how this crackpot, and longtime anti-American hatemonger, got the UN assignment, and why we never protested at the time.  Don't hold your breath.

January 25, 2011      Permalink

THE LUNATIC CORNER – AT 5:32 P.M. ET:  It is hard to believe that these people are permitted to roam free.  From The Hill:

Liberals want Keith Olbermann to run for retiring Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-Conn.) seat.

The ploy to coax the former MSNBC host into the Democratic Senate primary was hatched by activists attending a conference in Pennsylvania over the weekend.

Facebook and Twitter pages are already active and a website is expected to go up in the coming days.

"We’re using our full set of campaign tools but they won’t go active until we get a little downtime while we’re in D.C.," a blogger by the name of Stranded Wind wrote on the liberal website Daily Kos.

That's an appropriate name for a liberal blogger.

Olbermann left his show "Countdown" on Friday. He revealed over the weekend that he would return to his blog on MLB.com, Baseball Nerd, but has remained quiet about any other plans.

Should Olbermann decide to forgo a return to television, he could be eligible to run for Lieberman's seat, Stranded Wind notes. "He used to live in Connecticut and could easily return and establish residency."

COMMENT:  I'd love to see Olbermann run.  He might give his cohort at MSNBC, Chris Matthews, another tingle up his leg.

January 25, 2011      Permalink

OSCAR, THE STATUE – AT 10:26 A.M. ET:  Academy Award nominations were announced this morning.  There are now ten nominations for best picture, as opposed to the traditional five.  Given the state of modern movie making, it was hard enough to find five worthy nominees.  Ten is impossible, but commercial pressures forced the increase.

The Ten nominees are Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The Kids Are All Right, The King's Speech, 127 Hours, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, True Grit, and Winter's Bone.

I must confess that I've seen only two of the nominees, The Fighter and The Social Network.  I'm delighted that The Fighter was nominated.  It's one of the best-made films I've seen in years, with superb acting, an actual story, and crisp direction.  I caution about the in-the-ring boxing violence and the coarse language, wherein every verb is caressed by the same vivid adjective.  However, if you can get past those issues, this is a real movie movie, and worth seeing.

While I enjoyed The Social Network, the so-called "hottest" film of the year, I think it fell far short of greatness, and does not deserve an Oscar.  It is, as many readers will know, the fictionalized story of the invention of Facebook.  Good subject, but the movie is all head and no heart.  The details of the story are difficult to follow, and I don't recall a single character whom I actually liked.  In the end, the movie is about who gets what percentage of the profits, and I didn't particularly care.

Why is The Social Network the "hottest" movie?  My theory is that many influential film critics come from the same backgrounds as the people being portrayed – the movie is set at Harvard – and they saw a little of themselves up there.  The same can be said of many people populating the executive offices in Hollywood. 

I hope to see some of the other movies, and look forward especially to "The King's Speech," about the British monarchy in the 1930s.  I will comment, if anyone cares.

January 25, 2011      Permalink

AFTERMATH OF MOSCOW – AT 9:35 A.M. ET:  Yesterday's devastating attack in Moscow already has prompted some rethinking about security at America's airports.  The Washington Post reports: 

By midafternoon most days, hundreds of people gather just outside the security perimeter to wait for passengers coming in on international flights at Dulles International Airport.

Just like the dozens killed and injured at a Moscow airport on Monday, they are vulnerable to a terrorist who walks into their midst laden with explosives, said Rafi Ron, the former security chief at Tel Aviv's Ben-Gurion International Airport.

"That becomes a very attractive target to a suicide bomber," Ron said. "The attack in Moscow should draw attention to the need for increased security in these areas."

Spokesmen for the three major Washington-area airports - Dulles, Baltimore-Washington Marshall International and Reagan National - said there were no disruptions in service or changes to security at their facilities. They referred additional questions about their security measures to the federal Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

"We are monitoring the tragedy at Moscow's Domodedovo airport," TSA spokesman Nicolas Kimball said in a written statement. "As always, we are working with our international partners to share information regarding the latest terrorist tactics and security best practices. Passengers may continue to notice unpredictable security measures in all areas of U.S. airports, including before the checkpoint. These measures include explosives-detection technology, canine teams and Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams, among other measures both seen and unseen.

COMMENT:  We have been lucky up to now, in part because of the incompetence of our enemies.  But the Moscow operation demonstrated that terror groups can mount an attack precisely, with weapons that work, and with devastating effect.  On guard.

January 25, 2011      Permalink

THE HYPOCRISY FLOWS – AT 9:03 A.M. ET:  For those who will hang on every one of Barack Obama's words tonight, a word of advice:  He has a way of changing his "view" of things.  Consider his sudden, and deeply passionate, love for Ronald Reagan.  Byron York makes this note in the Washington Examiner:

In an article published in USA Today, President Obama praises President Ronald Reagan as a man with a "unique ability to inspire others to greatness." Obama also says of Reagan that "there is no denying his leadership in the world, or his gift for communicating his vision for America." The late president, Obama continues, "understood that it is always 'Morning in America.' That was his gift, and we remain forever grateful."

Obama's view of Reagan today is far different from the discussion of Reagan in Obama's 1995 autobiography Dreams From My Father. In that book, Obama says his strong feelings about the Republican president were part of the reason he decided to become a community organizer. "When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn't answer them directly," Obama wrote. "Instead, I'd pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds…"

In another part of the book, Obama criticized Reagan for "verbal legerdemain." By that, he was accusing Reagan of intentionally maintaining a gap between his sunny rhetoric and the actions of his administration. Now, President Obama praises Reagan's "faith in the American promise."

COMMENT:  All Obama has to do is put a bowl of jelly beans on his desk, and the picture will be complete. 

As for that book, he can claim that someone else wrote it.  No, I didn't say that.  I really didn't say that.  My fingers slipped on the keys.  It's an old psychological problem.

I think that, fundamentally, Mr. Obama is a man of the left, a left that goes well beyond traditional liberalism.  At the same time, he's a hopeless opportunist, and he wants that second term badly.  To get it, he may go so far as to do something right.

January 25, 2011      Permalink

GONE – AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  Carol Browner, the president's point woman on energy and "climate change" policy, is leaving the administration.  Browner, who's hinted in the past that she's a socialist (shock), doesn't exactly have big victories to point to.  From The Washington Post:

Carol Browner, a key adviser to President Obama on energy and environmental issues, said Monday night that she plans to leave the White House.

Her departure comes as something of a surprise. Browner had been a key part of the team helping to deal with and stop the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last year.

Notice her effectiveness.  What precisely did she do?

And she had been deeply involved in congressional negotiations over climate legislation. The measure passed the House last year but died in the Senate, and given the current makeup of Congress, its prospects of coming up for a vote are widely seen as nil. President Obama is instead expected to seek common ground with Republicans over ways to promote the burning of natural gas, rather than coal, by utilities with aging coal plants.

Given this record, why does the reporter say that her departure is "something of a surprise"?  Wouldn't you leave too?

Advisers described Browner as an integral voice in internal discussions, the rare outsider to join the upper ranks of Obama's staff. The Florida native's departure comes at a time when many industrial and mining companies, and as Republicans -- and a few Democrats -- are vowing to block the EPA from implementing new regulations on large generators of greenhouse gases.

Environmentalists regarded her as a key liaison to the West Wing, and her leaving is certain to add to the anxiety of many on the political left already nervous about Obama's outreach to industry.

We weep and cry.

COMMENT:  Environmentalists have enormous power within the Democratic Party.  And being pro-environment is hardly controversial.  However, more and more Americans are becoming skeptical about some of the more extreme claims of the environmental movement (or industry, if you will).  Someone in Browner's position could have performed a real service by trying to get to the truth of some of the claims and counter-claims, but she either chose not to, or knew that it was impossible in a Democratic administration.

January 25, 2011       Permalink

BIG SPEECH TONIGHT – AT 8:07 P.M. ET:  The State of the Union speech is tonight.  Now, please note the time on your clocks...right now.  Do you realize that, at this same time tomorrow morning, you will have forgotten everything that's going to be said tonight?  Check me on that.

Pundits yesterday were predicting a largely ceremonial and patriotic speech.  That seems to be the main intent.  Indeed, the recent shootings in Arizona will be front and center, with the president introducing some of those affected.  This, apparently, will include the family of the nine-year-old girl who was slain, which, in my personal view, raises serious questions of taste.  How about leaving some of these people alone?

The State of the Union is starting to look like editions of the old Ed Sullivan shows of many a Sunday night – when Sullivan would introduce members of the audience.  "Sitting out in the audience tonight, the winner of the gin game at Tony's Bar and Grill..."

As to the substance of the speech, there are some conflicting predictions.  Some say the president will turn himself into a deficit hawk, rushing to the right of the Republican establishment.  Others say he will actually call for more spending, more "investment" in the future.  Well, we don't have to wait too many hours to find out.

The president has been rising in the polls.  He wants to keep it that way, and attract independents to his column in 2012.  And yet, he must also energize the increasingly left-wing base of the Democratic Party, now largely stripped of its moderate wing in the House by the results of the November election. 

The president may well get another poll boost tonight, especially if he lays on the emotion and patriotism with appropriate (and probably false) thickness.  In the days that follow, though, he's got to present the federal budget for the coming year, and that's when the fireworks truly begin.

America will get a good look tonight at Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who will deliver the Republican response.  Ryan is already being seriously mentioned for higher office.  The response to the State of the Union gives him a platform he's never had before.  He gets this one shot, and must do well.  Recall the catastrophic performance of Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, whose strikeout in giving a State of the Union response to Obama dulled his previously shining star. 

January 25, 2011     Permalink