SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:45 P.M. ET: 

SATISFYING MOMENT – The New York Times, as could be expected, has been running attack pieces on potential Republican presidential candidates.  Why not kick them before they even start?  But one piece, by Times whackjob Gail Collins, went wildly awry.  From The Politico:  "In hindsight, perhaps the headline 'Scott Walker Needs An Eraser' wasn’t the best idea.  In a recent column about the Wisconsin governor, a conservative Republican, New York Times columnist Gail Collins wrote that Walker had cut state aid to education, causing teacher layoffs in 2010. But Walker didn’t take office until 2011.  Conservative news sites had a field day with the error over the weekend, with The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack calling out the (since deleted and corrected, but archived) mistaken section in question."  The Times's correction was minimal.  Collins, whose chief life accomplishment was going to Woodstock, wrote a column based on an entirely false premise, and should face at least a short suspension for her negligence.  Maybe she can be mentored by Brian Williams.

OBNOXIOUS – When news came through that ISIS had beheaded 21 Coptic Christians, most governments in the world, and the Pope, made clear that these innocents had died because of their religion.  But not the United States Government under Barack Obama.  Our State Department deplored the murders, but referred to the victims as "Egyptian citizens."  You'd think, after Obama botched this country's response to the Paris attacks, then refused to refer to the murderous assaults in a Jewish store as anti-Semitic, he would have learned something.  But he learned nothing.  There is something particularly mean-spirited about denying a person's identity in death.  It was 21 Christians who were beheaded.  Their Egyptian citizenship was irrelevant.  Got that, Barack?

HARSH VERDICT – Even presidential historians are turning against Obama, who was their hero not very long ago.  From the Washington Examiner:  "He’s still viewed as a nice guy, but less than two years before he wraps up two terms in the Oval Office presidential scholars don’t believe President Obama ranks anywhere near history’s greats, making him a mediocre 18th in the line of best to worst.  According to a Brookings Institution survey of American Political Science Association scholars, they put Obama on the worst, not best, list by a margin of nearly three-to-one. Here's how Brookings wrote it: 'Those who view Obama as one of the worst American presidents outnumber those who view him as one of the best by nearly a 3-1 margin.'  And, the friendly think tank added, 'nearly twice as many respondents view Obama as over-rated than do those who consider him under-rated.'  Overall, Brookings said, 'Few think of Obama as an excellent president, while many more rate his presidency quite low, with the bulk of experts appearing to give him a passing grade but not one that would get him on the Dean’s list.'"  And this is from a liberal organization.  History's verdict on Obama may well be that he was a great candidate and a terrible president.

I LOVE IT – From Britain's Independent:  "It could explain why The Help received four Academy Award nominations; Oscar votes are often decided by Hollywood’s household maids, Barry Norman has claimed.  The veteran film reviewer told Radio Times: 'There’s the question of whether all the voters actually saw all the films. It’s not unknown for some, especially the elderly, to get their maids to watch them on DVD and deliver their opinions.'  It is widely suspected that the 6,000-plus 'motion picture professionals' who comprise the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences do not watch every film under consideration, as they are required to, before casting their vote."  I'd trust the opinions of the maids over the professionals any day.  "Professional" in Hollywood is, let us say, an elastic term. 

February 16,  2015