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

APRIL 18,  2012

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:03 P.M. ET:

NEW PIPELINE PLAN – Fox News is reporting that the Canadians presented today a new plan for the Keystone Pipeline, putting pressure on President Obama to approve the pipeline before the election.  The pipeline is very popular with most Americans, but Obama has bowed to environmental militants in stalling approval.  Republicans see the stall as a significant campaign issue.

DICK CLARK – Dick Clark, who did more to introduce rock 'n roll to America in the 1950s than any other broadcaster, has died at 82.  One can debate the merits of the music, but Clark's clean-cut image and personal decency were reassuring to American parents.  As one newspaper put it, he came across as a well-scrubbed graduate student, not a carnival barker.

HUH? – The Obama campaign, embarrassed by a recent photo showing an almost all-white group of campaign workers in Chicago, is moving to diversify.  It is trying to hire more African-Americans, and is very public about the effort.  There has been considerable criticism from within the black community to the effect that Obama ignores "his own."  (No surprise there.)  Cynics say the new hiring binge is designed to stimulate black turnout in November.

THE TRAYVON MARTIN CASE – Florida Circuit Judge Jessica Recksiedler, who was supposed to preside over the case, has withdrawn, citing a conflict of interest.  She was pressured to withdraw by shooter George Zimmerman's well-regarded new lawyer, Mark O'Mara.  The judge's husband works with a lawyer who has been hired by CNN to comment on the case.  Everything O'Mara has done signals that he is going to put up a vigorous defense.

April 18,  2012     Permalink

THE END OF CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT – AT 9:23 A.M. ET:   It is with regret that I report that we have been engulfed by darkness.  From the Washington Post:

The barbarians have done it, finally infiltrated a remaining bastion of order in a linguistic wasteland. They had already taken the Oxford English Dictionary; they had stormed the gates of Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition. They had pummeled American Heritage into submission, though she fought valiantly — she continues to fight! — by including a cautionary italics phrase, “usage problem,” next to the heretical definition.

Then, on Tuesday morning, the venerated AP Stylebook publicly affirmed (via tweet, no less) what it had already told the American Copy Editors Society: It, too, had succumbed. “We now support the modern usage of hopefully,” the tweet said. “It is hoped, we hope.”

COMMENT:  That's it.  It's all over.  The AP, whose stylebook we use here, has drifted to the left in recent years, and it's clear that has been accompanied, as it always is, by lower standards.  Look what's happened to our universities.

The acceptance of "hopefully" symbolizes the dry rot of our civilization.  It is the linguistic equivalent of hip-hop, a one-word nod to the supremacy of the sixties generation.

What comes next, an acceptance of "Hey, man," as a proper form of address?  Or, "it's like, y'see," as elegant rhetoric.

I can't go on.  I must take my pills.  I do remember when a "concert" meant the New York Philharmonic, not a gang of dropouts with amplified instruments. 

Like, it's awful, but hopefully things will change.

April 18, 2012        Permalink

LATIN AMERICAN FLOP – AT 8:57 A.M. ET:  In the post below we report Obama's latest blunder, refusing to side with Britain in its dispute with Argentina over the Falklands.  The refusal has not gotten Obama anything from the leftist Argentinian government.

But there's more from Latin America.  Last week's Americas summit, which Obama attended, was catastrophic for the United States, in part because no one fears the American president any longer.  The conference literally broke up over the demands by the leftist governments of the region to invite Cuba to the next summit.  Obama, in an election year, had to oppose that, but did not get his way.  No decision was made.  In the past, the U.S. had but to wink, and the Castros would have gone unmentioned.

And then we had Obama, in high groveling mode, welcoming Brazil's new president, Dilma Rousseff, a former Communist guerrilla, to the White House.  Brazil now has the world's sixth largest economy, although that economy has started to falter under Rousseff's heavy socialist hand.  More worrisome, Rousseff is a professional anti-American.  From the Washington Times:

Ms. Rousseff is an exemplar of the anti-American hard left that is uniting in the developing world to check U.S. power. One of the main goals of her mission to Washington is to get Mr. Obama’s seal of approval for Brasilia’s ambition to acquire a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. U.S. support for this scheme would be self-destructive as Brazil would provide a reliable vote against American interests in the world body. Ms. Rousseff, a former communist guerrilla herself, is a strong supporter of anti-U.S. dictatorships such as the Castros in Cuba and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. She has backed the Iranian mullahs’ efforts to acquire nuclear capability while leading a club of nations pressing for U.S. nuclear disarmament. If the planet is divvied up between those who are for us and those who are against us, Ms. Rousseff is on the wrong side.

And...

This tale matters because Brazil is now the world’s sixth-largest economy and a leader of the coalition of second-tier states looking to extract revenge for years of perceived Western “first world” imperialism. The narrative mirrors Mr. Obama’s kneejerk “Blame America First” worldview. Brasilia also shows how left-wing bureaucracies mobilize to stifle dissent through censorship and confiscation of property when faced with public opposition. This week’s confab between Mr. Obama and Ms. Rousseff was more than a photo-op for two leftists whispering about what the world could be if they had more power. It’s about what the world is already becoming.

COMMENT:  Which is why we desperately need a change in Washington.  We already know that Obama has, not realizing a microphone was on, pledged to be more "flexible" with Russia once the election is over.  We have no way of knowing what he pledged to Rousseff, but he did a lot of smiling.

April 18, 2012        Permalink

AND THERE HE GOES AGAIN – AT 8:34 A.M. ET:  The foreign-policy pundits are buzzing about Barack Obama's latest gaffe, where our closest ally, Great Britain, was again the fall guy.  Our old friend Andrew Malcolm, at IBD, sets the stage:

OK, picture this: President George W. Bush, he of the cast-iron Texas tongue, at a news conference concluding an international summit.

He's asked about a dispute involving Argentina and Great Britain, our closest overseas ally, the one that's lost 408 soldiers by our side in Afghanistan, where we've fought a decade together to prevent a second 9/11.

In his answer, Bush refers to the disputed territory by the wrong name, misplacing the islands by some 8,000 miles. Worse than his geographic ignorance, instead of backing Britain, whose prime minister he just buddy-buddied at an NCAA game and White House state dinner, Bush says, well, that's not really something he thinks the United States would take sides on.

Britain?

Or Argentina?

Seriously?

Do you think there might be some prolonged outraged news coverage back home about the latest Bush blunder, this time a two-fer?

Well, Bush never did that. But Barack Obama did last weekend.

And...this is painful:

“We’re going to remain neutral,” Obama said at a news conference with President Juan Manuel Santos at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia. “This is not something that we typically intervene in.”

Oh really? Except the United States did intervene in the very same dispute back in 1982, when Obama was almost 21, long after his Indonesian childhood. Back then, Argentina invaded the British overseas territory of the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic.

COMMENT:  We aided Britain back then, as well we should have.  Britain is always there for us, the Argentinians are not, and had no problem harboring ex-Nazis after World War II. 

The current Argentine government, not warm toward America, has reignited the Falklands dispute, and the American president refuses to take the side of Britain.  The Brits will remember the next time Obama needs a favor.  I dread the possibility of this man getting a second term...with a new secretary of state.

April 18, 2012        Permalink

THERE SHE GOES AGAIN – AT 8:18 A.M. ET:  The first lady of the United States is between vacations, and talking again.  The White House might regret it.  Let us remember that Michelle Obama famously said during the 2008 campaign that her husband's run for the presidency made her feel pride in the United States for the first time, a remark that should have disqualified her instantly from any visible position.

She has done some good work for veterans' families and on behalf of children.  But she's talkin' politics again, and talkin' nonsense:

Michelle Obama made a remarkable claim when talking up her husband, President Barack Obama, at a campaign event earlier today in Nashville, Tennessee.

"I am so in," Michelle Obama said toward the end of her remarks. "I am going to be working so hard. We have an amazing story to tell. This president has brought us out of the dark and into the light."

The crowd of nearly 450 folks applauded as the first lady likened her husband to a Jesus-like figure.

COMMENT:  Yikes.  Are they really going back to that?  We had our fill of the "gift from Heaven" line in 2008.  We heard Barack himself say that, starting with his election, the oceans would begin to recede.  I have, since then, met many people who've vacationed at the beach, and they have not reported any significant change in the way the waves roll in.  Maybe Barack didn't get to their beach yet.

I find it both hilarious and depressing that the first lady makes religious references on behalf of an administration that has often trampled religious sensibilities, as in requiring religious institutions to insure medical procedures that offend the religious conscience.

Pure hypocrisy.

April 18,  2012     Permalink

APRIL 17,  2012

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:29 P.M. ET:

MONEY WORRIES – Output of U.S. factories was down in March, as were housing starts, flashing a yellow light to those who examine the American economy.  It appears that the "recovery," always somewhat vague, is losing strength.  We'll get further data as new jobs reports come out in the weeks ahead.

IS CHRISTIE INTERESTED? – Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey still insists he doesn't want to be vice president, but also says it would be "arrogant" of him not to consider a discussion about it with Mitt Romney.  Translated:  "Yeah, you know, hey, I can be persuaded.  I mean, it's my country.  Besides, who wants to live in New Jersey?"  It remains to be seen if Romney would want the pugnacious Christie on the ticket.

UN NOT GOING TO NORTH KOREA – The UN nuclear watchdog agency says it will not send a delegation to North Korea, since the North Koreans have said they are no longer bound by an agreement to suspend missile and nuclear tests.  The "international community" has failed miserably in its attempts to "engage" North Korea.   The North has broken one agreement after another.  The Obama administration doesn't seem all that concerned.

POLL MESS – There are some new polls out pitting Romney against Obama, but they're all over the place.  Most place Obama ahead, some by as much as nine points.  A few, like Gallup, have Romney ahead, but usually only by a small number of points.  A CNN poll reported that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe Obama will be re-elected, regardless of their own choice for president.  Polls at this stage are of little significance, outside their entertainment value.  Ronald Reagan trailed Jimmy Carter through most of the 1980 campaign.  And, at one point in 1988, Michael Dukakis was well ahead of Bush 41, who went on to defeat Dukakis handily.

April 17, 2012       Permalink 

WIPEOUT – AT 9:48 A.M. ET:  One of the saddest spectacles in American politics over the last generation has been the transition of the Democratic Party from the once great seat of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy to the shadow that it is today.

Essentially, the transition has seen the return of the fringe left, dramatically cast aside by Harry Truman in 1948, and the decline of the "traditional" Democrats, like Joe Lieberman, who's essentially been expelled from his party.  The Democratic Party today is Barack Obama, not Jack Kennedy.  It's John Kerry, not the great Henry "Scoop" Jackson, one of the great national-defense Democrats.

The traditional party is represented in Congress by the so-called "blue dog" Democrats.  They are the only hope for the party to get back to sanity and sound values.  But the blue dogs are in danger of being wiped out, as The Politico reports:

Just when the Blue Dogs thought it couldn’t get any worse, it did.

Two years after the 2010 midterm elections decimated their ranks, the coalition of conservative Democrats is poised to get pummeled again in November — moving the Blue Dogs dangerously close to extinction.

Of the 24 remaining Blue Dogs, five are not seeking reelection. More than a half-dozen others are facing treacherous contests in which their reelection hopes are in jeopardy.

It’s a rough time to occupy the right wing of the Democratic Party.

“It’s a tough environment out there,” said former Alabama Rep. Bud Cramer, a longtime member of the House Blue Dog Coalition. “Their numbers are down. Redistricting has not been kind to them.”

Cramer nailed it: Redistricting is at the root of the Blue Dog problem. The once-in-a-decade line-drawing has forced some of them to compete for seats that have become even less friendly to Democrats — and those seats weren’t very friendly to begin with. Utah Rep. Jim Matheson, Georgia Rep. John Barrow and North Carolina Rep. Mike McIntyre are among those who have been thrust into deeply Republican territory after being targeted in GOP-led redistricting efforts in their home states.

COMMENT:  It's sad, because our electoral system depends on two strong parties.  I have always said that I want both parties to put up their best candidates.  Who benefits from mediocrity or rigidity?  In recent years, though, each party has become increasingly ideological, whereas, historically, the strength of our system derived in part from a belief in practicality.  The country would tilt somewhat to the left, then somewhat to the right, always capable of getting back to the middle.  We are center left or center right.

Franklin Roosevelt took some ideas from the socialist movement, but never invited its leaders into his tent.

Ronald Reagan took some ideas from the pro-life movement, but kept a careful distance.

The wiping out of the blue dogs would turn the Democratic Party completely over to the California dreamin' crowd, the believers in George McGovern and Jesse Jackson, the worshippers of sixties values.  The Republicans, although they've moved somewhat to the right, still have a greater sense of American practicality, in part because conservatism tends toward the practical.

But we are in danger if our parties become, like European parties, ideological icebergs.  We wish the blue dogs well.

April 17, 2012       Permalink

SCARE OF THE DAY – AT 8:59 A.M. ET:   This could ruin even a serving of Edy's chocolate chip ice cream.  From the new Washington Free Beacon:

A CNN pundit who has advocated nuclear containment of Iran and expressed antipathy towards American democracy is said to be on the short list for a top diplomatic post in a second Obama administration—perhaps even secretary of State. That is raising red flags across Capitol Hill and within foreign policy circles.

Fareed Zakaria hosts CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” a weekly program focusing on international issues and American foreign policy. Zakaria is also an editor-at-large for Time magazine and a columnist for the Washington Post, where he regularly praises the president’s policies.

We are talking about a genuine, factory-made left-wing third worlder.  Lifetime guarantee.

“Every column he’s written in the Washington Post for the last two years has been a job application,” said one longtime Washington foreign policy insider who requested anonymity. “He’s just climbing the greasy pole.”

And...

With Zakaria at the helm, things could get “incredibly dangerous” at Foggy Bottom, where the State Department is headquartered, said a senior GOP Senate aide.

“The policy of Barack Obama is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Fareed Zakaria is now to the left of Barack Obama on Iran. There’s no way someone like that is qualified to be Secretary of State,” said the source.

Iran is one of Zakaria’s main areas of interest. Week after week on his television show and in his columns, he dismisses the international community’s fears about Iran, arguing that the regime is rational and that its nuclear program can be effortlessly contained.

And...

America’s system of check and balances, Zakaria maintained, creates political paralysis, damaging the country’s ability to be a world leader.

Zakaria’s remedy: unite the legislature and the executive branch under a single leader who could resolve America’s fiscal issues with unilateral declarations.

Oh, how European.  How...dictatorial.  At least he's open about it.

Zakaria will polish his theoretical credentials next month when he becomes commencement speaker at Harvard.  All Harvard commencement speakers should be banned from high positions of responsibility, except maybe minimal daytime babysitting under the supervision of a mature person.

April 17, 2012       Permalink

IS THE TRUTH COMING OUT? – AT 8:52 A.M. ET:   We make no judgments, but a new story from Reuters adds to the increasing skepticism about the second-degree murder charge against George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case:

(Reuters) - Neighbors of George Zimmerman say he had bandages on his nose and head the day after he shot dead Trayvon Martin, supporting statements by the neighborhood watch volunteer that he was beaten in a confrontation with the black Florida teenager.

The extent of Zimmerman's injuries could be crucial to his legal defense under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" self-defense law, which allows the use of deadly force when someone has the reasonable belief he could face death or great bodily harm.

Police said Zimmerman, who has been charged with second-degree murder in the racially charged case, was bleeding from the nose and the back of his head and was treated by medics before being taken to Sanford police station after the February 26 shooting.

But public doubts were later raised by the release of a grainy surveillance video from the police station in which no injuries were readily visible.

Zimmerman later sought medical treatment for injuries including a broken nose, his former lawyers have said.

Jorge Rodriguez, Zimmerman's next-door neighbor, told Reuters that when he saw Zimmerman the day after the incident, "he had two big, butterfly bandages on the back of his head, and another big bandage...on the bridge of his nose." He was talking to a police detective in his driveway.

COMMENT:  Zimmerman now has solid legal representation, but there is still an intimidating atmosphere surrounding the case.  The governor Florida has said that the second-degree murder charge, which many legal observers say is way over the top, was not issued in response to public outrage, but doubts are increasing. 

We'll let the legal process take its course.  This case can effect the presidential race should it boil over in the months prior to the election.

April 17,  2012       Permalink

MASS CONFUSION – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  Major literary honors are in store for anyone who can write a coherent essay explaining this story, from USA Today:

WASHINGTON (AP) – While the United States baked to its hottest March by far, the rest of the world took a break last month from ever increasing temperatures.

Baked?  Did you see any baking going on?

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the world as a whole had its coolest March since 1999. It was only the 16th warmest March since record keeping began in 1880. Still, the month was 0.8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 20th century average.

NOAA's Deke Arndt said though it was cooler than recent years, last month globally was warmer than the vast majority of Marches in the 20th century.

Arndt said the fading climate phenomenon La Niña has had a cooling effect globally.

So, it was cool before it was warm, or warm before it was cool?

Maybe the explanation is a bit more serious.  The New York Times reports what many science observers have been saying...that some aspects of "science" are in serious trouble:

Dr. Casadevall, now editor in chief of the journal mBio, said he feared that science had turned into a winner-take-all game with perverse incentives that lead scientists to cut corners and, in some cases, commit acts of misconduct.

“This is a tremendous threat,” he said.

Last month, in a pair of editorials in Infection and Immunity, the two editors issued a plea for fundamental reforms. They also presented their concerns at the March 27 meeting of the National Academies of Sciences committee on science, technology and the law.

Members of the committee agreed with their assessment. “I think this is really coming to a head,” said Dr. Roberta B. Ness, dean of the University of Texas School of Public Health. And Dr. David Korn of Harvard Medical School agreed that “there are problems all through the system.”

Now they tell us.

In his famous farewell address to the nation in 1961, President Eisenhower warned about the effect of federal funds on scientific results, raising the issue of whether some in science will shape results to fit the funding.  And, of course, the gravest questions have been raised about the global warming industry. 

Maybe we need a blue-ribbon panel, like the Challenger Commission, which investigated the loss of the space shuttle Challenger, to report on the state of science.  Indeed, a "state of science" report, like the State of the Union message, may make sense.

April 17, 2012        Permalink