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

MAY 10,  2012

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:35 P.M. ET:

HIT PIECE – The Washington Post ran a major hit piece on Mitt Romney today, relating his "bad boy" behavior in high school, including his bullying of a presumably gay student.  Romney immediately confirmed the incident and expressed remorse after the piece ran, but many Republicans are outraged, noting the double standard:  These incidents of high-school pranks and obnoxious behavior occurred half a century ago.  Barack Obama admitted to heavy drug use and drug selling in high school, but nothing was ever made of it.  The press is just beginning its campaign to destroy Romney.  That's got to be worth some points in any election.

AS FRANCE GOES – France has just elected a Socialist president.  It will shortly elect a new parliament, and polls show landslide victory ahead for the Socialists.  This is bad news for the United States.  France has been a good ally under Sarkozy, but a sharp lurch to the left could complicate our already weak foreign policy.  It's unlikely a Socialist France will be as supportive of Western defense as the Sarkozy team has been.  It's also unlikely that France will be as supportive of firm action against Iran.  With last week's Labour victories in municipal elections in Britain, possibly portending national Labour victories, and Putin's return to the presidency in Russia, and now France's tilt, things aren't going our way.  Although maybe Obama thinks these developments are just fine.

MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE – Several news outlets are reporting a disturbing meeting at the White House last night between President Obama and some foreign-policy writers.  What's disturbing is that the group included some leftist fringe characters who are not usually invited to break bread with an American president.  Some observers are billing the meeting as a kind of changing of the guard, suggesting that Obama, if re-elected, will depend more on young, "alternate thinking" characters in the foreign policy area.  What he's doing now is frightening enough.  He will have to appoint a new secretary of state, if re-elected, as Hillary is leaving.  That choice may send us all to the bunkers.

LOOK WITH TWO EYES – This will get some circulation on the left.  A new University of Maryland poll reports that Americans actually want deeper defense cuts than do members of Congress.  The poll reportedly gave respondents a list of defense programs, their cost and purpose, and asked which should be cut.  Included among those that most respondents wanted to drop is the F-35 fighter, our newest plane.  Polls like this are deceptive and useless, and I'm guessing (but cannot prove) that the purpose of the poll was to produce a particular result.  How would average Americans be able to evaluate specific defense programs, like a new aircraft?  This is silly, but damaging to the cause of a sound national defense.

May 10, 2012       Permalink

BATTLE OF THE POLLS – Strange developments in the polling business.  A new AP poll has Obama up eight points among registered voters.  From The Politico:

Half of registered voters say they would back Obama in November. Forty-two percent favor Romney.

But wait.  Rasmussen, who polls likely voters, dares to dissent this morning:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Mitt Romney earning 49% of the vote and President Obama attracting 45% support. Three percent (3%) would vote for a third party candidate, while another two percent (2%) are undecided.

And even Gallup, polling only registered voters, dissents from the AP poll, showing 47% for Romney, 44% for Obama.

COMMENT:  Why the difference?  Well, first of all, polls will differ simply because each has a margin of error, and the exact same people aren't being polled by each organization.

But they also differ because of method.  I haven't seen the internals of the AP poll yet, but I'd guess they oversampled Democrats.  And they may have oversampled sub-groups who register widely, but don't vote on election day.

Polls are snapshots in time.  But two of the three polls noted above indicate serious problems for Mr. Obama.  He should be well ahead of a challenger at this stage of the race, and he apparently isn't.

May 10, 2012       Permalink

ANOTHER ACADEMIC DISGRACE – AT 9:13 A.M. ET:   Yesterday we had the story, sent to us by reader Joseph J. Gallick, about a conservative blogger fired by the Chronicle of Higher Education for daring to question black studies.  Nothing like a little academic freedom at the Chronicle. 

Today another story of academic corruption crosses our desk, as reported by Paul Mirengoff at Power Line:

An internal investigation at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill has uncovered academic fraud involving the department of African and Afro-American Studies. The fraud extends to more than 50 different classes. It ranges from no-show professors to unauthorized grade changes for students.

According to the findings of the investigation, the department of African and Afro-American Studies offered 616 classes from the Summer of 2007 through the Summer of 2009. This fact alone raises questions for me. How serious could this many courses, offered by one backwater department, be?

In any event, the investigation found that in 9 of the 616 courses, there was no evidence that the faculty member listed as instructor of record, or any other faculty member, supervised the course or graded the work. Students apparently submitted work and received grades, but the grades were submitted to the Office of the Registrar with faculty signatures that appear to be forged.

In 43 additional courses, an instructor provided an assignment and evidently graded the resultant paper. However, the instructor engaged in limited or no classroom or other instructional contact with students.

Most of the suspect classes were “taught” by Julius Nyang’oro, who started the department and chaired it until last year. In fact, he was listed as the instructor of record, or his name was listed on the grade rolls, for each of the 43 courses where an instructor provided assignments and grades but performed essentially no teaching. Again, for one professor to have responsibility for 43 courses in two-year span seems farcical on its face.

COMMENT:  From what I've seen, this is the tip of the iceberg.  It is another example of the systematic cheating of black students by their "leaders" and "teachers." 

We've watched in dismay as much of the civil rights movement has turned into a business, an industry, largely devoted to the advancement and care of an elite.  We in New York watched in shock in the 1960s as the great City College of New York, sometimes called "the poor man's Harvard," was essentially destroyed by black demands for open admissions.  A school known for its standards and tough admissions system became an academic farce.  African-American youngsters were graduating from "City" without knowing how to read or write on even a high-school level. 

Who benefited from that?  Certainly not the black kids.  But many of them, not coming from academic backgrounds, did not understand the way they were being used, as bodies and numbers for the benefit of the "leadership."   They were grateful to that "leadership," and kept those leaders in power.  That's the way the game works.

There are plenty of other cases of academic fraud, such as Middle East Studies departments that are financed by Arab governments, without full disclosure by their universities.  Such as whole departments of history or political science, where every "scholar" must have the same point of view.

Academic fraud and corruption are worthy of major investigations by the mainstream media.  It will never happen.  Too many journalists have big investments in their degrees and don't want the value of those degrees eroded by serious questions.  It's part of the hold that colleges have over their alumni, and over society generally.  And it's hurting our society.

May 10, 2012       Permalink

SNUB – AT 8:45 A.M. ET: Vladimir Putin is back in town, the town being Moscow.  He's president of Russia again, as belligerent as always.  And what better why to assert one's power than to snub the president of the United States, which is what Putin is now doing.  From Fox:

WASHINGTON – Just days after reclaiming the Russian presidency, Vladimir Putin has canceled his planned visit to the United States, where he'd been scheduled to attend a major economic summit and meet with President Obama.

The White House confirmed in a statement late Wednesday that Putin told Obama on a phone call he'd be sending Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in his place. Putin claimed he was too busy finalizing cabinet appointments to make the May 18-19 G-8 Summit at Camp David. Yet the Obama administration had moved the gathering to the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland from the planned venue in Chicago partly to accommodate Putin.

Whether or not the schedule change marked an intentional snub, the let-down comes less than a week after the nation's military chief of staff warned that Russia would consider preemptive strikes, if a dispute with the United States over a Europe-based missile defense system worsens.

COMMENT:  Of course it's an intentional snub.  The "too busy" argument is a snub, by definition.  It reminds me of high-school girls who say they're "busy" on every day a guy suggests for a date.  The message is unmistakable.  (Of course this never happened to me.) 

Putin is anti-American.  He is a champion of a rising, militarily powerful Russia, and I would not sell him short.  We were assured by the Obamans that we would "reset" our relations with Russia, and an attempt was made.  The "reset" has produced nothing for us.  Putin could easily have come to the United States, but he is indicating to Obama Moscow's independence, and not-very-subtle contempt for Obama's weakness.

There is no prospect that our relations with Russia will improve in the short term.  That is not on Vlad's agenda.

May 10, 2012        Permalink

THIS SAYS IT – AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  The big subject across the internet this morning is, of course, President Obama's unheartfelt conversion to the cause of same-sex marriage.  The cynicism is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

The best quote I've found comes from Ed Rogers, a blogger for the Washington Post:

There is a lot of fawning media coverage of President Obama's new support for gay marriage. There is serious discussion of how he "evolved," and there are serious timelines being prepared by the Obama apologencia that earnestly track his "evolution." The only problem is they don't put "evolution" in quotation marks to highlight the cynical doubts that Obama's conversion deserves. There is every reason to believe that this decision was made because Obama thinks it serves his current selfish political interests. He characterizes his politically expedient flip-flop as a theological "evolution." The reality is, his political trajectory has stalled and he "evolved" into a desperate political situation.

The path to his final "evolution" and telling the truth about how he really feels about gay marriage don’t 't just reveal his changed thinking, it perfectly matches his political needs at every step of his ambitious career. Let's pause before we do any planning for an expansion to the eventual Obama monument on the Mall.

COMMENT:  Very well said.  The president has simply flip-flopped, and that diminishes his ability to use the "flip-flopper" argument against Mitt Romney.  Obama will get some street cred now from wealthy gay donors.  But I think he's also done himself some damage.  No more Mr. Hope 'n Change.  Now it's Mr. Change When it Suits Me.

May 10,  2012     Permalink

MAY 9,  2012

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:55 P.M. ET:

THE CONVERSION – Mr. Obama announced today that he now supports same-sex marriage.  He came to this revelation, he said, after deep thought, etc., etc., much contemplation, etc., etc....and two days after the Washington Post reported that he was having trouble raising money because so many of his major financial backers are gay, and didn't like his vagueness on the gay marriage issue.  Thus, the president announces a new stand based on morality and goodness, and...  Look, if you believe anything he said, I recently came into possession of a bridge in Brooklyn, and, because of my love for our readers, I'd be happy to sell it at a very attractive price.  Who wouldn't want a bridge?  Just send me an e-mail.  Cash only.

FLAPDOODLE – In an apparent attempt to rival Joe Biden's gaffes, President Obama referred today to American troops "fighting on my behalf."  Huh?  We know that Obama thinks of himself in royal terms, but someone please inform him that American troops don't fight "for king and country."  Just for country.  Maybe God, if they wish.  But the president really doesn't figure into it much.  I do wish for a president who understands American traditions, or even follows a few.

SHARPTON SPEAKS – Not to be outdone by other demagogues, Al Sharpton, speaking in Missouri, says that Republicans are engaged in a war on 1) blacks, 2) women, and 3) immigrants.  He also says that the GOP is trying to take the vote away from blacks.  Other than that, he doesn't have too many problems with Republicans.  It is still astounding to me that this third-class race hustler and self-server continues to draw an audience.  Here in New York he is regarded as little more than a joke, and a joke who has done real harm.  Shame on the press for keeping him going.

WHO'S REALLY WAGING A WAR ON WOMEN – The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that, in the last two months, some 324,000 women have dropped out of the labor force.  The number of women not in the labor force hit an all-time high of 53,321,000.  Note the silence of the so-called "feminist" movement, which is far less interested in women these days than advancing a leftist agenda and staying cozy with Obama.

May 9,  2012          Permalink

ACADEMIC DISGRACE – AT 9:13 A.M. ET:  The embarrassments in the academic world continue to pile up.  Now the Chronicle of Higher Education, one of the most prominent journals in the field, has sinned badly, and the story is starting to build.  From Jon Last at the Weekly Standard:

Late last night, in a shameful example of editorial cowardice, the Chronicle of Higher Education fired Naomi Schaefer Riley. Naomi is a good friend of mine, a sometimes contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, and a fine writer. And the story of what happened to her is highly instructive.

Naomi joined the Chronicle’s “Brainstorm Blog” a little over a year ago. It was a good hire—she’s written two insightful books on academia, God on the Quad and The Faculty Lounges, along with dozens of articles on the subject. Her postings were smart and entertaining. (For a couple of samples, click over to “If this is art, your middle-school daughter is Picasso” and “No sex for you.”)

Last week she wrote about the world of “Black Studies” in a post titled “The most persuasive case for getting rid of Black Studies? Read the dissertations.” You should read the whole thing, because it’s only 520 words, but here’s the gist of Naomi’s argument:

I just got around to reading The Chronicle’s recent piece on the young guns of black studies. If ever there were a case for eliminating the discipline, the sidebar explaining some of the dissertations being offered by the best and the brightest of black-studies graduate students has made it. What a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap. The best that can be said of these topics is that they’re so irrelevant no one will ever look at them.

The uproar was immediate.

Chronicle readers were outraged. Not that a graduate student was earning a doctorate by claiming that Sowell, Thomas, and McWhorter are threats to civil rights. Oh, no. They were outraged because Naomi would dare poke fun at such insanity. Because, you know, that’s racist.

COMMENT:  At first the Chronicle defended Riley's piece as being a legitimate part of the discussion.  But the protests continued to pour in.  They were vitriolic and ugly.  And yes, the word "racist" was used over and over.  (Ms. Riley is married to Jason Riley of The Wall Street Journal, an African-American.)

Finally, the Chronicle gave in and fired Naomi Riley.  No room for free speech on certain topics. 

Presumably, most readers of the Chronicle are involved in higher education.  These are the people teaching your children.  Spend your $42,000 a year wisely.

I urge you to read the whole piece and the linked articles.  This is remarkable stuff.  I'm guessing that Fox News and other outlets will pick up the story.

May 9, 2012       Permalink

ADD THIS TO THE IRANIAN THREAT – AT 8:57 A.M. ET:   The so-called "Arab spring" seems to have produced little but worry for the West.  Egypt is slipping into Islamism.  Syria has turned into a killing field.  And...remember those Libyan anti-aircraft missiles that went missing during Libya's phase of the Arab spring?  David Ignatius, in today's WaPo, reveals where they might be.  This is serious stuff:

Whenever the CIA uncovers a new plot overseas, like al-Qaeda’s latest scheme to blow up civilian aircraft using advanced, hard-to-detect explosives, people breathe a sigh of relief. But this is a multifront war, and almost by definition, the attack that gets you is the one you didn’t see coming.

For the past few months, I’ve been hearing private warnings about another threat to commercial planes — namely, the spread of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles from Libya after the overthrow of Moammar Gaddafi’s regime. A State Department official said in February that Gaddafi had acquired 20,000 of these weapons, and that only 5,000 of them had been secured through a $40 million U.S. program to buy up loose missiles.

“How many are still missing?” asked Andrew Shapiro, assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, in his Feb. 2 speech. “The frank answer is we don’t know and probably never will.”

Here’s the scary part: Two former CIA counterterrorism officers told me last week that technicians recently refurbished 800 of these man-portable air-defense systems (known as MANPADS) — some for an African jihadist group called Boko Haram that is often seen as an ally of al-Qaeda — for possible use against commercial jets flying into Niger, Chad and perhaps Nigeria.

COMMENT:  One of our nightmares is that missiles like this, broken down into component parts, might be smuggled across the Atlantic to, say, Venezuela, then smuggled into the United States across our southern border.  Even a small number of missiles could wreak havoc with our commercial air system.

Several weeks ago a high administration official was quoted as saying that the war on terror was over.  Apparently, he was misinformed.

May 9, 2012       Permalink

IRAN COVER-UP – AT 8:38 A.M. ET:  Satellite photos show what is probably a major attempt by Iran to "cleanse" a nuclear site that arms inspectors want to visit.  The Iranians, once the site is sanitized, could offer entry to the inspectors as a "gesture of peace."  From London's Telegraph:

New satellite photographs appear to show that unusual activity has taken place in recent weeks at the Parchin site outside Tehran, according to the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS).

A large stream of water pictured flowing from the building, said to feature an “explosive chamber” for testing, “raises concerns that Iran may have been washing inside the building," according to the group.

A series of unidentified items were also shown lined up outside the building in the April 9 photographs. Pictures taken in March and in July 2011 showed neither, suggesting unusual recent developments.

David Albright, ISIS's founder, said its finding backed up concerns at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has been denied access to the site since 2005, over recent “activity” there.

“Iran should immediately allow IAEA inspectors into the Parchin site and allow access to this specific building,” said Mr Albright, a former inspector. “It should also explain the purpose of the activities."

Yukiya Amano, the IAEA Director General, said earlier this year that he had “information” that “activity is ongoing” at the site, which is at the centre of the controversy over Iran's nuclear scheme.

The IAEA believes that a large explosives containment chamber was installed at the complex in 2000 for explosives experiments that are “strong indicators of possible weapons development.”

COMMENT:  Nuclear talks with Iran resume later this month.  There is no expectation of a breakthrough.  No negotiation with Iran on its nuclear program has ever succeeded. 

The new, unity government in Israel puts additional pressure on Iran, with the threat of an Israeli air strike looming.  And Joe Biden said yesterday that Israel had a right to defend itself against the Iranian nuclear menace.  He did not pledge administration support for an eventual Israeli attack on Tehran's nuclear program, but did hint at it.  In addition, the U.S. has been boosting its forces around Iran.

May 9, 2012       Permalink

HIGH NOON IN WISCONSIN – AT 8:18 A.M. ET:  Politically sensitive eyes will be on Wisconsin on June 5th, for the recall election to decide the fate of incumbent Republican Governor Scott Walker.  Walker has saved Wisconsin from economic ruin, but has upset powerful interests, especially public-service unions, to do it.  Thus the recall election.

Now we know who Walker will be running against in an election that takes place in less than a month.  From The Politico:

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett won the Democratic primary in Wisconsin’s gubernatorial recall election Tuesday, dealing a blow to organized labor and setting up the June 5 race against Republican Gov. Scott Walker.

Barrett defeated former Dane County executive Kathleen Falk, the unions’ preferred candidate, by a wide margin. With 94 percent of precincts reporting, Barrett had 58 percent to Falk’s 35 percent. Two other Democratic candidates, Secretary of State Doug La Follette and state Sen. Kathleen Vinehout, received 3 percent and 4 percent, respectively.

COMMENT:   Despite Walker's remarkable success as governor, saving a sinking financial ship, polling shows the recall election will be very close.   There is no sure thing here.  Unions say they will now unite around Barrett to defeat Walker, who eliminated collective bargaining for state employees. 

Barrett ran against Walker for governor at the last election and lost.  He is well known in the state and has the capacity to attract moderates, as he's no bomb thrower.  This is one to watch.

May 9,  2012     Permalink