THURSDAY,  SEPTEMBER 3,  2009

MORE NORTH KOREAN GAMES - AT 7:25 P.M. ET:  North Korea, after some smiles and a few nice words, seems back in the nuclear business, which will come as no shock to Urgent Agenda readers.  The question is what Washington will do about it, if anything.  North Korea's latest bluster follows by days the election of a new, left-wing government in Japan that may not be as helpful on the Korean question as was the previous government:

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea said on Friday that it was in the final stage of enriching uranium, a process that would give it a second path to making a nuclear weapon.

After a series of conciliatory gestures by the North over the past month, the announcement raises the stakes in efforts by the international community to convince the reclusive state to give up its nuclear weapons programme.

"Experimental uranium enrichment has successfully been conducted to enter into completion phase," the KCNA news agency quoted North Korea's United Nations delegation as saying in a letter to the head of the U.N. Security Council (UNSC).

The North has already tested two plutonium-based nuclear devices, the one in May triggering tightened international sanctions.

The United States has long suspected that the North has a secret programme to enrich uranium for weapons. Experts have said it has not developed anything near a full scale enrichment programme.

COMMENT:  The North Koreans are looking at the United States.  They see a soft president, weakened, with international problems piling up before him.  The Koreans may well calculate that they have little to fear except, maybe, an occasional scolding letter or some weak sanctions.

September 3, 2009   Permalink

BETTER THAN A PTA MEETING - AT 7:06 P.M. ET:  It was inevitable.  As soon as American parents learned that their kids would be forced to listen to a speech by The One, there was a revolt.  Once again, we see the fruits of an administration tin-ear blunder:

DALLAS — President Barack Obama's back-to-school address next week was supposed to be a feel-good story for an administration battered over its health care agenda. Now Republican critics are calling it an effort to foist a political agenda on children, creating yet another confrontation with the White House.

Obama plans to speak directly to students Tuesday about the need to work hard and stay in school. His address will be shown live on the White House Web site and on C-SPAN at noon EDT, a time when classrooms across the country will be able to tune in.

Schools don't have to show it. But districts across the country have been inundated with phone calls from parents and are struggling to address the controversy that broke out after Education Secretary Arne Duncan sent a letter to principals urging schools to watch.

Districts in states including Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin have decided not to show the speech to students. Others are still thinking it over or are letting parents have their kids opt out.

CORRECT:  There is nothing wrong, of course, with the president of the United States urging kids to stay in school and work hard.  It's admirable.  But, as usual with this administration, it was handled in the worst possible way.  The Department of Education put out one of those government guideline sheets, later hurriedly withdrawn, urging students to ask what they could do for the president.  Sorry, we don't do that in our democracy. 

The key here is to make sure conservatives don't overreact.  The handling was incompetent, but the situation can be saved.  Sure, let the president address kids on the value of education.  For minorities, it could be an inspiring moment.  But then a leading Republican, perhaps former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, might also be asked to say a few words.  Or John McCain can speak about national service, something he knows a great deal about.  What parents have objected to is the "dear leader" idea.

Our kids need every bit of inspiration they can get.  What they don't need is American Idol, Obama style.

September 3, 2009   Permalink 

RASUMUSSEN REPORTS ON NATIONAL PESSIMISM - AT 9:35 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen's survey shows a steady trend:

For the third straight week, just one-third (34%) of likely voters believe the United States is heading in the right direction, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Rasmussen concedes that this is up considerably from the last months of the Bush administration, when the financial collapse occurred.  But still, for a new president to do so poorly in his first seven months in office is startling.

It gets worse when you look at the racial divide:

Seventy-one percent (71%) of African-American voters believe the country is heading in the right direction. Only 29% of white voters and 25% of all other voters agree.

It's understandable that African-American voters would want to cheer on President Obama, but their overwhelming support distorts the poll numbers.  Americans generally are in a bad mood.  If the economy revives, of course, that could change.  If it doesn't, Mr. Obama and his party are in for a tough time next year.

September 3, 2009   Permalink

ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO DESTROY A CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE - AT 8:48 A.M. ET:  The Washington Post, in my view, has improved importantly in the last year, and its editorial page, while liberal, is often sane and thoughtful.  But there are still lapses.  This past week the Post ran a news story exposing an academic thesis written two decades ago by the Republican candidate for governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell.  It contains controversial ideas.

Highly respected political observer Michael Barone takes the Post to task for the way it has handled the story, which, Barone feels, smacks of bias:

In the 2006 campaign season the Washington Post ran more than a dozen front-page stories on Senator George Allen’s reference, at an August 11 campaign stop almost 400 miles from Washington, to an opposition campaign staffer as “Macaca.” One of these stories, perhaps, had enough news value to be worthy of the front page; the others were placed there with the obvious intent of defeating Allen and electing his Democratic opponent Jim Webb, who did indeed win by a 50%-49% margin.

Now there’s a campaign on for governor of Virginia, and the news editors of the Post seem to be using their front page once again to defeat the Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell, and elect Democrat Creigh Deeds.

Barone is starting a "Macaca watch":

Item number one on the Macaca Watch is the Sunday front page story on the thesis Bob McDonnell wrote in 1989 at Regent University where he obtained a masters degree in public policy and a law degree...

...the first paragraph of the story, prominently on the front page, sends the culturally liberal voters of Northern Virginia in the Post’s local circulation area a pretty clear message: you better not vote for this guy.

And...

Item number two on the Macaca watch is Tuesday’s front page story headlined “Governor’s Race Erupts Over McDonnell’s Past View.” The “eruption” consists of a bunch of emails sent out by Democrats quoting from McDonnell’s thesis and a McDonnell conference call with reporters answering questions—pretty routine campaign stuff, hardly front page material.

The reasoning behind the "stories":

The obvious agenda here is to raise the specter that if McDonnell is elected, all women in Virginia will be fired from their jobs and forced to stay home knitting or driving car pool. We’ll see how much longer the Post can keep this story on the front page.

Update: The Washington Post published two more stories about McDonnell's thesis on Wednesday.

COMMENT:  We declare that it's perfectly proper for The Post to go back into a candidate's past to provide a complete picture of the individual.  But why is this only done, normally, with conservative candidates?  If a newspaper went back decades to reprint a liberal candidate's, say, Marxist views in college, it would be called - you know it - McCarthyism. 

We see the same pattern constantly.  Conservative candidate:  Detailed investigation.  Liberal candidate or newsmaker:  Vagueness.  Thus, hard Marxists are described as "anti-war" activists or "peace activists."  If a conservative candidate made a racially questionable remark 30 years ago, the press hammers away, and the hammering might be appropriate.  But if a Democrat did the same thing, the press assures us that he's evolved.

I'm glad Barone is carrying the torch on this.  He has great credibility and must be listened to.

September 3, 2009   Permalink

CAUTION ON AFGHANISTAN, FROM A REAL EXPERT - AT 8:02 A.M. ET:  The following letter comes from an American who travels to Afghanistan and is a recognized expert on the country's current condition.  This is not an optimistic report:

At the risk of melodrama, I think the administration has reached a very real crossroads on Afghanistan.  I note that in some conservative circles George Will is getting roundly dunned for his recent piece on Afghanistan, but some of his points are spot on.
 
He writes:
 
"NATO assistance is reluctant and often risible." 
 
Will has been criticized for not crediting the valiant efforts by some NATO partners (especially the British), but he brushes up against a bigger point here.  NATO "assistance" suggests that they are just helping out, lending a hand to a largely American endeavor.  This would be fine, except for the out-of-proportion influence NATO countries have at the headquarters level.  Prickly NATO leaders expect to consulted at every turn and hint at political fallout when their paltry contributions don't merit heavy consideration of their positions.  I don't know if McChrystal has changed the atmospherics much at ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) headquarters, but I'd be surprised if he's had much of an impact on that culture.  After all, senior NATO officials have little to fear from him...their bread is buttered elsewhere.  This leads to a lack of the much vaunted and extremely necessary "unity of effort" that military operations require.  Yes, we have succeeded without it before, but only when we were able to bring our decided advantage in firepower and logistics to bear; these advantages mean much less in a counterinsurgency.
 
"Counterinsurgency doctrine teaches, not very helpfully, that development depends on security, and that security depends on development." 
 
I've seen or heard nothing to give one hope that any signficant development will be forthcoming in this backward region.  It manufactures almost nothing and its only cash crop is heroin.  The work of our military is heroic, but can only produce drops of progress in oceans of stasis.  We are not rebuilding in Afghanistan, we are building in Afghanistan.  This building is proceeding very slowly, far too slowly to have any impact whatsover on security levels. 

Also, Afghan businessman and government officials are being advised by Eurocrats who have no idea how to unleash the untapped potential of capitalism.  They are excellent in helping slow and hinder healthy economies, but in jump-starting new ones?  I wonder if they have any idea what to do.  "Jobs programs" and "investing in the community" sound great, but what do they mean on the ground?  The Afghans actually spent time, money, and security on hosting a "women in business" conference, the perfect sort of high-minded and utterly useless event the Eurocrats are good at running.
 
"Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable." 
 
This is the crux of the problem.  For counterinsurgency to work, the people have to feel secure enough to rat out the bad guys.  They will never rat them out while they move freely among them.  And the bad guys will roam freely among them throughout most of Afghanistan in the absence of a huge expansion of our efforts there.  Further NATO assistance is not coming.  A rapid expansion of the Afghan security forces, both Army and police, would probably produce poor results.  Despite our Herculean efforts, the current Afghan forces are marginal at best.  A rapid increase in their ranks would fatally weaken the current structure, overburdening stretched recruiting, training, logistics, and command and control systems.  The Afghan army is made up of valiant men who have no concept of management, planning or fiscal responsibility.  At this point, training Afghan forces burdens our forces there; it does not add significant counterinsurgency strength to the field.
 
It is an open secret that McChrystal needs many, many more troops for security forces, but has been warned by Washington to NOT bring in an assessment that requires them.  It will be interesting to see if he has the courage to bring the bad news that, without rapid expansion, we will continue to make no significant progress--which is the same as losing in a counterinsurgency.
 
"America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters."
 
This is pure fantasy.  Small, potent Special Forces do not drop in from afar without the kind of intelligence that being present on the battlefield produces or without having the tremendous logistical, medical, and air support that a signficant presence in theater provides.   Afghans cannot supply any of these, and would not if they could, if we are not there fighting with them.  Similarly, drones, cruise missiles, and air strikes will fall uselessly on empty patches without eyes on the ground in theater.  Pakistan's porous 1500-mile border will be that much more unpoliced if there is no one there to police it.
 
No, we cannot do anything about Afghanistan from afar.  It is so remote, so splintered, so inhospitable that we are forced to be either all in or all out.  Neither prospect is encouraging, but doing a slight bit more of the same, which seems to be what Obama wanted to hear, cannot work.

COMMENT:  We have an administration that believes itself too sophisticated to use the word "victory," and we apparently are paying the price.  Some say Afghanistan will become Obama's Vietnam.  It could be worse.  We could be left with an Afghanistan that still harbors and nurtures those who attacked us on 9-11, and dream of doing it again, on a larger scale.

September 3, 2009   Permalink  


WELL, WHAT DO YOU KNOW? - AT 7:45 A.M. ET:  Even in Washington, some depend, as Tennessee Williams put it, on the kindness of strangers.  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — As President Obama prepares to decide whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan, the political climate appears increasingly challenging for him, leaving him in the awkward position of relying on the Republican Party, and not his own, for support.

The simple political narrative of the Afghanistan war — that this was the good war, in which the United States would hunt down the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks — has faded over time, with popular support ebbing, American casualties rising and confidence in the Afghan government declining. In addition, Afghanistan’s disputed election, and the attendant fraud charges that have been lodged against President Hamid Karzai, are contributing further to the erosion of public support.

COMMENT:  The real story here isn't policy in Afghanistan, it's the behavior of the Democratic Party.  We can debate policy in Afghanistan, and thoughtful people can even advocate pulling out or setting a deadline for withdrawal.

But there is a wing of the Democratic Party, centered in the California delegation to the House, that is against virtually everything we do overseas.  Some of its members, like Diane Watson and Barbara Lee, are followers of Fidel Castro. 

That wing was effectively shown the door by Harry Truman in 1948, and they went on to back Henry Wallace, who ran for president on the Progressive ticket.  This crowd filtered back into the party during the sixties and has become disturbingly powerful. 

Yes, if the president wants to expand our efforts in Afghanistan, or indeed do anything else to enlarge our defense capacity, he may well have to depend on the Republican Party for help.  What a comment on the party of Roosevelt, Truman, and Jack Kennedy.

September 3, 2009   Permalink 

WEDNESDAY,  SEPTEMBER 2,  2009

BULLETIN - AT 8:46 P.M. ET:  From The Washington Times:

The Obama administration late Wednesday withdrew a recommendation that school children who watch a video featuring President Obama next week write about how they might "help the president" as part of a classroom assignment.

The decision came after conservative critics attacked the plan by federal education officials that teachers supplement the speech with a special curriculum that was designed in concert with the White House.

COMMENT:  Maybe the White House is starting to get the message.  This is the United States.  We don't worship leaders. 

September 2, 2009   Permalink

BUSINESS AS USUAL - AT 7:24 P.M. ET:  Please remember that there's a vacant Senate seat in Massachusetts due to the death of Senator Kennedy.  We recall what happened in Illinois when President Obama vacated his seat to become president.  The fight to succeed him in the Senate turned sordid, to put it mildly, and the nation wound up with Roland Burris.

Now Massachusetts is reverting to standard political form, as The Politico notes:

Most of the prospective contenders for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat have demurred when asked about their interest, but several are well-stocked for a January special election that figures to spawn an intense, expensive and compressed battle for the Democratic nomination.

As many as seven current or former Massachusetts Democratic congressmen have been mentioned as potential Senate candidates and between them they’ve stockpiled nearly $16 million that could be used to fund campaigns for their party’s Dec. 8 special Senate primary, which will likely determine the next senator from deep-blue Massachusetts.

To be sure, some of the seven have downplayed the possibility that they’d seek the seat and others would face long odds of winning the nomination if they threw their hats into the ring. But national fundraisers, Massachusetts political strategists and sources close to the prospective candidates all agree that having a financial head-start will be a huge advantage in a race where the ability to quickly raise and spend vast amounts of cash could be determinative.

“The money will be a huge factor,” said a Massachusetts Democratic operative, who asserted that to be a viable special election candidate, Democrats will need to raise between $3 and $4 million before December. Others predict the putative entry fee could be north of $5 million—or more for candidates with lower statewide name identification.

COMMENT:  Bought and paid for.  You'd think they'd try to elevate the process in Massachusetts, but money still talks.  It will be business as usual.  The effect of political funerals usually lasts about 24 hours, 48 if they liked the guy.

September 2, 2009   Permalink

OH, NOT AGAIN - AT 5:02 P.M. ET:  As if we weren't blessed enough, we are about to be addressed one more time by the one, the only, the guy we've all been waiting for...Barack!  (Sustained applause)

The president will address a joint session of Congress on the subject of health- care "reform" on September 9th.  This comes one day after he will address the nation's students, in their madrassas, by live TV hookup.  The New York Times announces:

President Barack Obama plans to begin an increasingly personal push for his embattled health care initiative with a televised address before a joint session of Congress next Wednesday night, an administration official said.

The president’s speech is timed for Congress’s return after an August recess that took its toll on his signature domestic issue after opponents disrupted lawmakers’ town hall meetings on the subject and national polls charted slippage in support for Mr. Obama and his proposed overhaul of the health care system.

The administration also is trying to compile a simplified and lower-cost blueprint for legislation that would plainly put Mr. Obama’s stamp on the issue, and more clearly identify it with him. The effort amounts to an acknowledgement that the president’s previous tactics of laying out principles and leaving Congress to fill in the details were no longer working.

COMMENT:  Nothing like a little overexposure.  This is a clear example of how this administration runs things - government by speech.  Obama still believes, despite his experience in recent months, that he can convince people of anything, that only when HE rises to speak do the mountains move and the waters recede.  He recently held a major press conference on health care that the in-the-tank media dutifully covered.  He had precious air time, but couldn't even describe his own health-care program.  And what is the solution?  Another speech.

The president's TV ratings have been going constantly down, along with his poll ratings.  Let's see if this new encore will be any different.

Frankly, I think people are bored with him, as they would be bored by any salesman after the first few pitches fail to work.

September 2, 2009   Permalink 

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 10:25 A.M. ET:  From respected political reporter Dan Balz of The Washington Post, on the Obama-Democratic dilemma, as we enter the political season:

For much of the year, White House officials have been cautioning their Democratic allies on Capitol Hill that the party will rise or fall together, that failure is the worst possible outcome of the health-care debate because of what it would say about the Democrats' ability to govern. That remains a powerful motivator among Democrats, and it is one reason to believe that, in the end, Congress will send some kind of health-care bill to Obama for his signature.

But members of Congress and the president are now operating on conflicting political timetables. Obama doesn't have to worry about reelection until 2012, when the world could look quite different. Members of Congress have to face the voters in 14 months and already they are nervous about what they see. Once they start worrying mostly about their own survival, Obama's hold on them will be weakened.

Obama's self-confidence and patience are well known. If he has been rattled by the summer setbacks, he won't show it. But this is not the campaign of 2008. His team of Hill veterans knows that successful legislating is tedious and often comes in small, hard-won victories that ultimately add up to bigger success. That has been and remains their focus.

COMMENT:  Yeah, this governing part is a bummer.  It was so easy when you could have a rally with 10,000 starry-eyed college students, and shout, "Yes we can!"

And remember that Mr. Obama faces large foreign-policy challenges in the fall, as well as a confrontation on his cap 'n trade bill, which is running into fierce opposition in the Senate. 

For Obama, the best news would be a revived economy.  Money in the pocket, or a good job, will change votes, no matter what today's polls show. 

September 2, 2009   Permalink

MORE DEM POLLING WOES - AT 9:59 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen is reporting that the gap in support between Democrats and Republicans is growing:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

That represents the lowest level of support for Democrats in recent years, while Republicans have tied their highest level of support for the third straight week. The previous low for Democrats over the past year was 37%.

And...

Looking back one year ago, support was strikingly different for the parties. Throughout the summer of 2008, support for Democratic congressional candidates ranged from 45% to 48%. Republican support ranged from 34% to 37%.

COMMENT:  What a difference a year makes.  But remember, things can go in reverse.  A year from now we will be approaching the 2010 midterms.  As the financial people say, today's numbers are not a guarantee of future results.  Republicans must be energetic, creative and practical. 

And we wish some good luck to moderate Democrats.  We need a two-party system, and they are the only ones who can stabilize the Democratic Party and return it to saner times.  The genius of American politics, historically, has been its practicality, not its ideology.  The Dems today are far too ideological, stuck out there on the leftist fringe (mistakenly called liberal). 

If those of our persuasion work hard, field candidates who can do the job, and nurture the Reagan Democrats, we'll do fine.

September 2, 2009   Permalink

MORE ON DEAR LEADER'S ADDRESS TO THE FLOWER OF OUR YOUTH - AT 8:49 A.M. ET:  We've gotten a flood of e-mails over the announcement from the Information and Enlightenment Ministry in Washington that President Obama will take a giant leap in saving our children by addressing all American students, via TV, on September 8th.

Conservative commentator Michael Medved has some thoughts on that:

To prepare for this great event, the Department of Education orders teachers in Grades 7 to 12 to ask their students: Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us? After the great event, the department suggests that teachers of younger students (Pre-Kindergarten to Grade 6) should instruct their students to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These should be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.

For those who consider this an appropriate use of classroom time at the very beginning of the school year, ask yourself the question: how would you respond had President Bush ordered teachers to get students to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president?

Inevitably, the brilliant minds behind this magnificent event will say that they're just echoing John F. Kennedy's call to "ask what you can do for your country."  But serving the country, and serving a political leader, are two entirely different things.  We don't serve presidents.  Presidents serve us.   This is the United States, the last time I looked.

A number of teachers have reacted with appropriate indignation to the misuse of public resources and precious school time to encourage the cult of Obama worship. Carole (not her real name), a gutsy middle school teacher in the Midwest, discussed the upcoming speech on my radio show on Monday. Teachers from four different states called in to say that they would follow her example and refuse to devote class hours to watching and discussing the presidential address.

I wonder if the thought police will come after these teachers, and insist that they be sent back to school for "reeducation."

Challenges from parents and taxpayers everywhere could force a change in White House plans. The idea of using government schools to force students to bond with the maximum leader might seem appropriate for Cuba or North Korea, but it’s clearly out of place in a Constitutional republic.

It's time for a protest, a big one.

And it's time for national Republican leaders, and moderate Democrats, to speak out and stop this misuse of children.

September 2, 2009   Permalink

REMEMBER - AT 7:45 A.M. ET:  Today is September 2nd, the anniversary of the formal end of World War II.  The Japanese signed the instrument of surrender aboard the battleship USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay on this day in 1945. 

In remembering September 2nd we should remember the enormity of the sacrifices this country made in past wars.  I mention that because of my contempt for poorly educated journalists who glibly talk about how America is "war weary" today...and yes, every casualty is precious, especially for the family involved.  But consider:  In the last year of World War II...

the United States lost more than 19,000 men at the Battle of the Bulge,

the United States lost almost 7,000 men at Iwo Jima,

the United States lost more than 12,000 men at Okinawa.

Please remember that the next time some fashionably leftist journalist agonizes over our situation today, or sneers at the use of the atomic bomb, which ended the horrors of World War II.

Tonight, at the Angel's Corner, we'll be publishing a fine recollection by reader Claude Williams of his trip through the wartime battle sites of Europe, and how it affected him.  Well worth reading.

September 2, 2009   Permalink

HEALTH CARE - THE EXCITING, HEART-POUNDING SEQUEL - AT 7:28 A.M.  Starring Barack Obama as the young president, Rahm Emanuel as his best friend, with a cast of thousands at town meetings across America. 

It appears that the president has decided to do some governing, or something like it.  You know, general governing.  The New York Times reports that he'll get more active on health care:

WASHINGTON — President Obama is planning for “a new season” of more hands-on advocacy for his troubled domestic priority, an overhaul of the health care system, according to his advisers. Among the likely steps would be a nationally televised speech that close allies have urged, and a 10-year price tag for the overhaul below the $1 trillion mark.

Another speech?  Another illusion that if The One merely blesses the thing, it will be done.  No, sir.

A 10-year price tag below $1-trillion?  What do you think the real price tag will be?  How about $2-trillion, and counting?

Mr. Obama met on Tuesday with advisers including Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, and David Axelrod, a senior strategist, to prepare for Congress’s return to work next week after a month in which many lawmakers have been spooked by contentious townhall meetings and polls registering slipping support for the president and his health care plans.

“We’re obviously entering a new season here and this issue has been debated and discussed and chewed over at great length now,” Mr. Axelrod said in an interview. “There are a lot of ideas on the table and now it’s time to pull those strands together and finish the work.”

Now it's time?  We're talking about life-and-death issues.  Now it's time?  What about before, when the "plan" was being written?  Welcome to government.  Campaign is over.

And get this breakthrough:

That suggests the president could for the first time put in writing the elements of a health care plan, drawing from the common pieces of measures approved in three House committees and the Senate committee formerly headed by the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, in an attempt to spur Congressional action.

While they're at it, how about putting into writing 1) how we're going to end the Iranian nuclear threat; 2) how we're going to win in Afghanistan; 3) how we're going to counter North Korea; 4) how we're going to stand with our East European allies on missile defense.

You know, while you've got the fountain pen out, Mr. President, give us more than a few pages.  Pads are available at Staples.  Get a four-pack.

September 2, 2009   Permalink