THURSDAY,  MAY 28,  2009

LITERARY NOTES - AT 11:25 P.M. ET:   Well-informed reader Will Stroock has an article in the August 2009 issue of Military Heritage, about the Soviet experience in Afghanistan.  Read the first part here.  The remainder is in the print edition, available at large bookstores like Borders or Barnes & Noble.  Very good stuff.

Also, although there's been no official announcement, it appears that the neoconservative New York Sun, which had to fold last year under economic pressure, is back with a limited online edition.  Find it here.  Only some of the sections are back, but the start is good, and worthwhile.

May 28, 2009   Permalink 

MORE SIGN OF A BACKLASH AGAINST THE NEW ORDER? - AT 9:59 P.M. ET:  A few days ago we reported an article by John Judis in the liberal New Republic that pointed out that tough economic times often bring a return to traditional values.  We noted that recent polls on abortion and gun control signalled a possible shift to the right.  Now comes something else.  We must caution that this is one incident.  A group for men's rights is being formed at the generally liberal University of Chicago (my alma mater).  It coincides with other expressions of concern over the deteriorating condition of men in some sectors of American society.  The Chicago Tribune:

A group of University of Chicago students think it's time the campus focused more on its men.

A third-year student from Lake Bluff has formed Men in Power, a student organization that promises to help men get ahead professionally. But the group's emergence has been controversial, with some critics charging that its premise is misogynistic.

Others say it's about time men are championed, noting that recent job losses hit men harder and that women earn far more bachelor's and master's degrees than do men.

"It's an enormous disparity now," said Warren Farrell, author of "The Myth of Male Power" and former board member of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women. He noted, among other things, an imbalance in government and private initiatives that advance the interests of women and girls.

I'm all for equality and women's rights - I have two daughters - but there's no question that men have had some serious setbacks in recent years, and that's unhealthy for the society.  There may still be some radical feminists who don't care what happens to boys and men, but they are few in number.  Half the mothers in America, after all, are mothers of boys, and they care what happens to their sons.

Another report from American Thinker:

Over the Memorial Day weekend, many college administrators attended a conference about the absence of men on today's college campuses and expressed concern about the negative experiences and unprecedented challenges facing college men today.

The "2nd Conference on College Men" at the University of Pennsylvania featured sessions examining the implications of negative comments about men that are prevalent on college campuses and the sexist campus activism of participants in the nation's 500 college gender studies departments. The conference program, attended by about 100 professors and student affairs personnel, exposed some unpleasant facts: men are "overrepresented" in drug and alcohol abuse, violations of campus regulations, and acts of violence and sexual assault, and they are "underrepresented" in academic programs and campus leadership activities.

Great article.  Stories started years ago about how boys are demeaned in the current educational culture.  In some schools, any books that appeal to boys are taken off library shelves.  Radical feminism has become a staple at teachers' colleges.  Now the backlash.

May 28, 2009   Permalink

MEANWHILE, BACK IN AMERICAN POLITICS - AT 9:09 P.M. ET:  As Obama worries about Israeli settlements, maybe he should pay attention to some shifting of real estate here in the U.S.  Namely, Chrysler dealerships.  The Washington Examiner reports on a growing scandal:

Evidence appears to be mounting that the Obama administration has systematically targeted for closing Chrysler dealers who contributed to Republicans. What started earlier this week as mainly a rumbling on the Right side of the Blogosphere has gathered some steam today with revelations that among the dealers being shut down are a GOP congressman and closing of competitors to a dealership chain partly owned by former Clinton White House chief of staff Mack McLarty.

The basic issue raised here is this: How do we account for the fact millions of dollars were contributed to GOP candidates by Chrysler dealers who are being closed by the government, but only one has been found so far that is being closed that contributed to the Obama campaign in 2008?

COMMENT:  Is someone suggesting that our Chicago-based White House would be a party to...political hackery?  Why, I'm shocked.  I'm just shocked that anyone would suggest that our president, who, after all, grew up in scandal-free Indonesia, would tolerate anything like this. 

Well, a number of people are suggesting just that.  The other side is saying that car dealers are overwhelmingly Republican, and that accounts for the figures.  But the Examiner asks:  If they were overwhelmingly Democratic, would the administration put pressure on Chrysler to close them down...or keep them?  Hmm.

And there's this tidbit: 

Maybe it's significant, maybe not, but a colleague here in the Examiner newsroom just reminded me that White House car czar Steven Rattner is married to Maureen White, the former national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Not relevant.  Nothing to see, nothing to see.

May 28, 2009    Permalink

PRESSURE ON ISRAEL - AT 8:31 P.M. ET:  President Obama met with President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority at the White House today, but all the pressure was on Israel:

WASHINGTON — President Obama called on Israelis and Palestinians on Thursday to move swiftly toward peace talks, as his administration embarked on its first public dispute with Israel.

Speaking to reporters at the White House after talks with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, Mr. Obama said that the absence of peace between Israelis and Palestinians was clogging up other critical issues in the Middle East. “Time is of the essence,” Mr. Obama said. “We can’t continue with the drift and the increased fear on both sides, the sense of hopelessness that we’ve seen for too many years now. We need to get this thing back on track.”

Mr. Obama reiterated his call for a halt to Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and said he expected a response soon from President Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.

And this gem of strategy:

Officials close to the Palestinian Authority said that Mr. Abbas’s meetings in Washington with administration officials—including Mrs. Clinton and the National Security Adviser, General James L. Jones—have been more amicable. That could reflect the view in Washington that Mr. Abbas does not have the political weight at the moment to push through anything on the Palestinian side.

Part of the reason administration officials are pushing the Israelis on settlements is that they think that stance will bolster Mr. Abbas with an increasingly fractured Palestinian population.

COMMENT:  Yeah, right.  If Israel gives on settlements, Hamas and Hezbollah will just melt into the woodwork and start singing the Israeli national anthem.

I'm no big fan of Israeli settlements, but the notion that they are somehow blocking peace is delusional.  Israeli abandoned all its settlements in Sinai when Egypt made peace.  It abandoned all its settlements in Gaza when it pulled out.  Neither made much difference with the Arab militants sworn to destroy Israel.

This is Jimmah Carter land.  The pressure on Israel comes the day that we learn that Queen Elizabeth II has been excluded from D-Day ceremonies with Mr. Obama in France, and a week before we start requiring passports from Canadians wanting to enter the U.S.

Any pressure on enemies?  Well, we must understand them.  They may not have the "political weight" to do things.  We must be tolerant.  We must be...

Remember that North Korean nuclear test?  It's already off the front pages.

May 28, 2009   Permalink

AND IT ISN'T JUST BRITAIN - AT 8:46 A.M. ET:  Silvio Canto Jr. alerts us to a marvelous column in the Canadian press, chiding President Obama for his attitude toward Canada.  Do you think the president has a problem with these Western-type countries, like Britain, Canada...and the U.S.?

Dear President Obama, Like most Canadians I rooted for you madly and cried when you were elected President-of-The-World. So far, I think you've been a great leader, reaching out to the whole planet.

But you've forgotten one nation - Canada.

On June 1, you will officially defend the "world's longest undefended border," a border I've crossed hundreds of times. From now on, we Canadians need passports to enter the U.S., a major hassle for truckdrivers, boaters and shmoes like me who can no longer cross to buy cheap Polo shirts without remembering to pack passports for the whole family.

Yeah.  It's get-tough-with-Canada week.  Who said this president hasn't got a spine?

This will also end a long U.S.-Canada tradition - the army of under- 21 U.S. college students who pour into Canada for their first legal drinking binge. Many won't bother to get the passports they'll need to get back into the States - so we may have to keep them.

Why the change? Our nations always boasted "the world's friendliest border," but now you Americans see us as Afghanistanada, a terrorist haven with porous borders guarded by Frosty the Snowman. Your politicians rant about our supposedly lax security. Last week, even Hillary Clinton talked about "hardening" the U.S.-Canada "water borders" with more patrols, as if the Great Lakes were filled with Somali pirates.

COMMENT:  We wait to see what insults are in store for Australia.  And can the New Zealanders be far behind?  We know the Kiwis are a threat to our national survival.  There are midnight meetings at the White House. 

May 28, 2009   Permalink

OH DEAR, OH DEAR, OH DEAR - NOT AGAIN - AT 8:20 A.M. ET:  What is this thing that Obama seems to have about Britain?  First, he sends back a bust of Winston Churchill that had been in the Oval Office.  Then he insults the prime minister by giving him a set of DVDs that don't play in British machines.  Then an aide to the president leaks the notion that there's no longer a special relationship between Britain and America.  And now, the ultimate, the snub to the Queen...even though she had the Obamas over when they traipsed to London recently.  The New York Times reports the latest flap:

LONDON — Queen Elizabeth is not amused.

Indeed, she is decidedly displeased, angry even, that she was not invited to join President Obama and France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, next week at commemorations of the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy, according to reports published in Britain’s mass-circulation tabloid newspapers on Wednesday. Pointedly, Buckingham Palace did not deny the reports.

The queen, who is 83, is the only living head of state who served in uniform during World War II. As Elizabeth Windsor, service number 230873, she volunteered as a subaltern in the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service, training as a driver and a mechanic. Eventually, she drove military trucks in support roles in England.

COMMENT:  How do you make a mistake like this?  Don't they have protocol officers in Washington?  Now you just know that this will be the buzz when the president goes to Normandy. 

Do you invite the Queen at the last minute?  Do you say the invitation got lost in the mail?  Was eaten by the new White House dog?  Was eaten by the president?  By Judge Sotomayor?

Britain had colonized Kenya, the president's father's native land, and some theorize that Mr. Obama resents the Brits.  Even so, you have to invite the Queen to these things.  I know it's another mouth to feed, but still...

Oh, I looked up "subaltern," used in the last paragraph of the Times quote above.  It means an officer in the British army below the rank of captain, particularly a second lieutenant.  Now we've all learned something today.

May 28, 2009   Permalink

STILL DOWNPLAYING THE THREAT - AT 7:55 A.M. ET:  We don't hear much from Gen. James Jones, the president' national security adviser.  He doesn't have anything near the visibility that Henry Kissinger or Condi Rice had in the same role.  He has now surfaced, proved that he is still breathing, and has pronounced on the North Korea situation:

President Obama’s national security adviser on Wednesday said that North Korea’s recent nuclear detonation and missile tests are not “an imminent threat” to the safety and security of the United States.

Retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, in his first speech on the administration’s approach to national security, said that the “imminent threat” posed by North Korea is that of the proliferation of nuclear technologies to other countries and terrorist organizations.

North Korea still has “a long way” to “weaponize” and work on the delivery of its nuclear missiles before they pose a threat to U.S. security, Jones said in a discussion hosted by the Atlantic Council.

COMMENT:  In the immortal words of George Gobel, let's wait one gosh-darned minute.  Review that argument again:  The Korean tests are not "an imminent threat" to the U.S.  The imminent threat is proliferation of nuclear technology to nations and terror groups.

Say what?  Isn't proliferation an imminent threat to the U.S.?  I kinda thought it was.

One purpose of White House officials is to play down threats to take pressure off the president.  I'm guessing that's at work here.  The trouble is, there are too many people in the president's extended family of mainstream reporters and editors who will take what Jones is saying at face value, and melt North Korea off the front page.

May 28, 2009   Permalink

DOES THIS MEAN HE'S NOT DIVINE? - AT 7:39 A.M. ET:  The president has been comparing himself to others again, but the comparison this time is a step down from the Divinity: 

After being introduced at the DNC fundraiser at the Beverley Hills Hilton by famed producer Jeffrey Katzenberg, President Obama compared himself to FDR.

"I would put these first four months up against any prior administration since FDR," Obama said. "We didn't ask for the challenges that we face, but we don't shrink from them either."

Katzenberg had a theatrical way of describing the president in his introduction.

"If you look in the dictionary under 'grace under fire,' it will say Barack Obama," he said.

COMMENT:  Well, actually it's not in the dictionary, but how would a Hollywood producer know?  The phrase was used frequently to describe Jack Kennedy, but then it was "grace under pressure." 

Once again the president announces that he didn't ask for the challenges he faces.  What president ever did?  Did Lincoln say, "I'd really like a civil war, please, Lord"?  It's simply another variation of "blame Bush."  And I think the American people will start to tire of it.

He also says that he doesn't shrink from those challenges.  We'll see about that.  Key words are Korea, Iran, nuclear.

May 28, 2009   Permalink

KOREA UPDATE - AT 7:21 A.M. ET:  From the Washington Post:

TOKYO, May 28 -- The joint command for South Korean and U.S. forces on the Korean peninsula raised its alert level Thursday in response to an extraordinary week of truculence from North Korea.

At the United Nations, diplomats are pushing for sanctions with teeth against the government of Kim Jong Il. Proposals include freezing assets, banning travel for elites and cutting access to international banks.

Japan and the United States want a new resolution that makes cargo inspections of North Korean vessels "compulsory'' for U.N. members, according to a report by Japan's Kyodo news agency, which cited diplomats in New York. It also said that a trade embargo on all arms, not just large weapons such as battle tanks, has been proposed.

COMMENT:  It's a symbolic act, last done in 2006 after North Korea's last nuclear test.  The key here is the extent to which China and Russia, ostensible allies of North Korea, will go along with stronger sanctions, sanctions tough enough to change the country's behavior.  If that behavior doesn't change, we have to ask ourselves what action, short of military action, will accomplish anything.  If the answer is "no action," Mr. Obama will have a very stark choice.

And Iran is watching.

May 28, 2009   Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  MAY 27,  2009

THE FRAUDULENT ISSUE - AT 11:53 P.M. ET:  I've been offline for a chunk of the day in order to attend a briefing by Dr. Willie Soon, a Harvard- and Smithsonian-affiliated scientist who spoke on his grave doubts about the global warming craze.  Among the points he made:

- Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and a shortage of it, for plants and foliage, may turn out to be a greater problem than an excess.

- There is a great deal of money involved in this issue, from people who seek to profit from new technology and crazes, to government and interest-group grants to "researchers" who have the right point of view.

- The money-and-influence problem is so great that one renowned scientist refuses to take any new graduate students, if they want to deal with global warming, unless they're financially independent.

- Talk of a "consensus" among scientists is rubbish.  Science doesn't work according to consensus. 

- There are many more front-rank scientists who are skeptics, but are reluctant to speak out.

- One government program has spent $20-billion in taxpayer money for "research" into global warming, with almost nothing to show for it in ten years.

COMMENT:   We may wind up spending trillions on this issue, with no guarantee whatever that the "science" is correct.  In fact, as Dr. Soon implies, we may wind up doing more harm than good.

And yet, the mainstream media asks few questions.

May 27, 2009   Permalink

NOTHING TO SEE HERE, NOTHING TO SEE - AT 4:32 P.M. ET:  As is the custom as an administration becomes Carterized, the White House is not alarmed by the latest rhetoric from North Korea:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House says North Korea's threats against South Korea will not give it the attention Pyongyang wants and will only add to its isolation.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Wednesday that North Korea should live up to its promises and stop its provocations against the South.

Tough, real tough.  And get this punch:

Gibbs says North Korea has threatened to end the armistice many times in past decades but the peace has held.

Don't worry, be happy.

Odd, but the secretary of state doesn't see it that way:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned on Wednesday that North Korea faces consequences for its nuclear and missile tests and denounced its ''provocative and belligerent'' threats.

Clinton also underscored the firmness of the U.S. treaty commitment to defend South Korea and Japan, U.S. allies in easy range of North Korean missiles.

Clinton's stern statement came after North Korea threatened military attacks against U.S. and South Korean warships and called Seoul's decision to join an international program to intercept ships suspected of aiding nuclear proliferation tantamount to a declaration of war.

COMMENT:  Say what we want about Hellish Hil, but she's probably the best man Obama's got.  Do you sometimes get the feeling she wants to put some air, or bubble wrap, between herself and the president, just in case?

Yeah.

May 27, 2009   Permalink

AND NOW FOR THE REAL WORLD - AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  While the mainstream media obsesses over the life story of Judge Sotomayor, there is a mess of grimness going on in the Far East.  Oh, wait.  We're not supposed to say Far East any longer because it's so America-centric.  So, there's a mess of grimness going on in the misunderstood, yet still culturally exciting land of North Korea. 

This is getting very serious:

May 27 (Bloomberg) -- North Korea threatened a military response to South Korean participation in a U.S.-led program to seize weapons of mass destruction, and said it will no longer abide by the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War.

“The Korean People’s Army will not be bound to the Armistice Agreement any longer,” the official Korean Central News Agency said in a statement today. Any attempt to inspect North Korean vessels will be countered with “prompt and strong military strikes.” South Korea’s military said it will “deal sternly with any provocation” from the North.

South Korean President Lee Myung Bak ordered his government to take “calm” measures on the threats, his office said in a statement today. Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary, Takeo Kawamura, echoed those remarks and called on North Korea to “refrain from taking actions that would elevate tensions in Asia.”

And the Russians are taking the tensions in Korea very seriously indeed:

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia is taking security measures as a precaution against the possibility tension over North Korea could escalate into nuclear war, news agencies quoted officials as saying on Wednesday.

Interfax quoted an unnamed security source as saying a stand-off triggered by Pyongyang's nuclear test on Monday could affect the security of Russia's far eastern regions, which border North Korea.

"The need has emerged for an appropriate package of precautionary measures," the source said.

"We are not talking about stepping up military efforts but rather about measures in case a military conflict, perhaps with the use of nuclear weapons, flares up on the Korean Peninsula," he added. The official did not elaborate further.

COMMENT:  We don't widely recognize it here in the United States, but Moscow is very concerned about the stability of Russian lands in the east, which are far from the core and can turn very unstable.

The crisis with North Korea is major.  It has come about in part because of delusions in Washington that anything can be negotiated, and because of a lack of firmness.  The question must be asked:  If we cannot handle North Korea, which can't even feed its own people, how can we possibly expect to handle Iran?  And don't you think the Iranians are thinking the same thing?

May 27, 2009   Permalink

THE RIGHT HAND AND THE LEFT HAND - HANDS APART - AT 8:16 A.M. ET:  Well, there's this diplomat, and then there's his book.  And then there are the red faces.

Dennis Ross is President Obama's special adviser on Iran.  Apparently, Ross wasn't let in on the president's latest Mideast fantasy.  Or, maybe he wants to salvage his reputation and distance himself from it.  But there has to be some embarrassment, as an Israeli newspaper points out:

Dennis Ross, the U.S. Secretary of State's special adviser on Iran, says in a new book that the United States will not make progress toward peace in the Middle East with the Obama administration's new plan.

The book, written with David Makovsky and entitled "Myths, illusions, and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East," opposes the Obama administration's concept of linkage. The book is to be published by Viking Press next month.

Contrary to the position of the president and other advisers, Ross writes that efforts to advance dialogue with Iran should not be connected to the renewal of talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

COMMENT:  Why do I think Ross might review the standing qualifications for unemployment insurance?  This is very juicy stuff.  He could have revised that book, and chose not to.  Difficult meetings ahead.

May 27, 2009   Permalink

THE MAN WHO REPLACED OBAMA - AT 7:57 A.M. ET:  Oh dear, oh dear.  To quote Cindy Adams, "So many scandals, so little time."  From CBS in Chicago:

Sen. Roland Burris was recorded on an FBI wiretap suggesting that he could write a check to former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's campaign before the ousted governor appointed Burris to the Senate.

The details of the conversation emerged after a federal judge said Tuesday he would allow the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee to hear a federal wiretap of the former governor's brother, Rob, having a fund-raising conversation with Burris. Rob Blagojevich was running the campaign fund at the time.

COMMENT:  Has the president of the United States nothing to say about this, about the man who replaced him in the U.S. Senate?  Apparently not.  He is from Chicago, and apparently knows not to challenge those more politically powerful than he is.

It is time for the real power, the mayor of Chicago, to put an end to Burris's Senate career.  Frankly, I hope he doesn't.  Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois, a superb Republican, is poised to run for the Senate against Burris next year, and Kirk can win.

May 27, 2009   Permalink

POSSIBLE SCANDAL BREWING - AT 7:31 A.M. ET:  I doubt if the mainstream media will show any enthusiasm for this story, but there is a possible scandal brewing around the decision to abruptly close a number of Chrysler dealerships.  This is the beginning of a potentially explosive story that, if handled correctly by the Republicans, can have serious implications.  The issue:  Was the list of Chrysler dealers to be closed based on real economic criteria, or on the political contributions of the dealers?  (Yes, that's a serious question.)  Blogger Doug Ross summarizes, in a post that is making its way, big time, around the internet:

A tipster alerted me to an interesting assertion. A cursory review by that person showed that many of the Chrysler dealers on the closing list were heavy Republican donors.

To quickly review the situation, I took all dealer owners whose names appeared more than once in the list. And, of those who contributed to political campaigns, every single one had donated almost exclusively to GOP candidates. While this isn't an exhaustive review, it does have some ominous implications if it can be verified.

However, I also found additional research online at Scribd (author unknown), which also appears to point to a highly partisan decision-making process.

Consider the partial list of Chrysler dealership owners, listed below. You'll notice that all were opponents of Barack Obama, most through sponsorship of GOP candidates and organizations, but a handful through Barack's Democrat rivals (Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in 2008, for example).

COMMENT:  All right, more research needed, but the preliminary information looks devastating.  As Ross asks, "Does it seem odd that the list of closed dealerships appears to have contributed a grand total of $200 to Barack Obama and millions to GOP candidates/causes?"

That question must be answered.  The issue should not be allowed to drop, or to be ridiculed by MSNBC.

May 27,  2009   Permalink

THE JUDGE - AT 7:19 A.M. ET:  As we said here yesterday, President Obama's selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the United States Supreme Court has an almost certain chance of making it through Senate confirmation, as Republicans will be very reluctant to challenge this "first."  But that doesn't mean the debate will be mild.  Already there are serious questions about the judge, her record, and her approach to the law.

Silvio Canto Jr., on whose radio show I'm privileged to appear, gives one perspective, that of a conservative Hispanic-American:

Sonia Sotomayor is a lot more than a liberal. She has a reputation for judicial activism, or empathy as they call it these days!

We don't like judicial activists. They betray the US Constitution.

In my view, judicial activists should take off their robes and run for the legislature.

Let's say it again: Judges don't make law. Legislators make laws and judges interpret them.

Let's give Sotomayor a chance to get to the confirmation hearings.

Let's treat with respect.

Let's avoid the immaturity that the Dems exhibited during the Roberts and Alito hearings a few years ago.

Last, but not least, let's hope that Senator Sessions and Senator Cornyn, two of our best legal minds, ask her some probing questions.

And...

This is what scares me most about Sotomayor and modern liberals. They want to use the courts to get what they can't get through the ballot box.

COMMENT:  In scouring the press this morning, I find that concern expressed over and over.  Now, I have no problem with judges understanding the consequences of their decisions.  But those consequences, including painful ones, may be inevitable in light of what the law requires.  The remedy, as Mr. Canto points out, is in state legislatures, or, if a federal question, in Congress.

I suspect that this issue of the legitimate role of the judge will be the focus of
Republican attention.  But I don't think it will stop Judge Sotomayor.

May 27, 2009   Permalink