Looking for an interesting book on climate change and suggestions on how to prevent it? First-time diarist bmx writer offers us A Review of Al Gore’s New Book, Our Choice. (Louisiana 1976)
HIV-infected Chinese children struggle with stigma | read this item
FUYANG, China (Reuters) – The second storey of this nondescript building in Fuyang city in China’s central province of Anhui houses HIV-positive orphans, but unlike many other similar establishments, there are no signboards outside.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This column is available exclusively through King Features Syndicate. For permission to reprint or excerpt this copyrighted material, please contact: kfsreprint@hearstsc.com, or phone 800-708-7311, ext. 246.
Prepare for the advent of Barack Obama, neocon. On the Afghan War, he is throwing in with the lying, warmongering running dogs of neoconservatism by ordering a surge of some 30,000 troops.
Obama has to become a president of victory even though he hails from a party of defeat. The responsibilities of office separate him from a political base that only sounded stalwart on the Afghan War so long as it was a handy political tool with which to beat George W. Bush about the head and shoulders.
As soon as Obama assumed office, liberals bailed from the war with an almost comical desperation. They professed to have just discovered that Hamid Karzai is corrupt. That al-Qaeda is mostly across the border in Pakistan. That waging a war of counterinsurgency in one of the poorest, most illiterate countries in the world is a trying and complex endeavor.
They suffered the torment of visions of Obama as another LBJ, a dogged aggrandizer of the state undone by an unpopular foreign war. To borrow FDR’s terms, they didn’t want Obama to go from Dr. New Deal to Dr. Win-the-War, not with the multitrillion-dollar prizes of health-care reform and cap-and-trade within reach.
Obama knows how they feel. He announced his Afghan War strategy in March somewhat dutifully, a box checked on the more important road to a massive expansion of government. When Gen. Stanley McChrystal said he needed another 40,000 troops to implement that strategy, Obama blanched and retreated into a months-long exercise in high-profile, leak-prone agonizing.
Upon taking office amid World War I, French prime minister Georges Clemenceau declaimed: “My home policy: I wage war. My foreign policy: I wage war.” Obama took office not wanting to wage war or, if he could help it, manage a foreign policy. He rose to prominence as the peace candidate in a Democratic party that thrills to transforming America, not faraway countries of which we know nothing.
But it’s one thing to be a New York Times columnist and turn on the war after declaring it the central front in the War on Terror for years. It’s another to be president and eventually have to order the choppers to take off from the roof of the embassy in Kabul in the ensuing debacle.
In Obama’s long review, the fanciful suppositions of the war’s skeptics were systematically knocked down: No, the war couldn’t be waged from afar with drones and Special Forces; no, the Taliban couldn’t be considered a relatively harmless force; no, Afghanistan couldn’t slide into chaos without further destabilizing Pakistan.
The professionals, Hillary Clinton, Bob Gates, and Admiral Mullen, all lined up in favor of some form of the surge. Obama was left without any plausible reason to heed his deepest instincts.
Consequently, he finds himself in rough alignment with all the same hated people who conceived, executed, and supported the Iraq surge, and against the people who opposed it — and elected him. He’s about to embark on the rarest of things for him: a major, genuinely bipartisan initiative. Until now, the “post-partisan” Obama has avoided anything like NAFTA in Bill Clinton’s first year or No Child Left Behind in Bush’s.
The same Democrats who tried to end the Iraq War by defunding it hope to crimp the Afghan War by funding it. Willing to increase the debt on anything but fighting our enemies, House liberals agitate for a war surtax. Surely they can spare some of the proceeds from their promised half-a-trillion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid for funding our troops?
If Obama weren’t burdened by his office, he might stand with his party’s newly minted Afghan doves and familiar purveyors of defeat. But he can’t. That makes him a conflicted commander-in-chief, ordering the surge, but loading it with conditions and “off ramps,” talking of resolve, but leaving room to maneuver. His head says “win,” his heart says “don’t commit.”
Why Won't We Face Iran's Evil? -- By: Mona Charen | read this item
When tens of thousands of Iranians took to the streets last spring and braved the most brutal repression the regime could inflict, Michael Ledeen was the least surprised man in Washington. In season and out, Ledeen has chronicled the profound weakness of the mullahocracy and its deep unpopularity with the Iranian people. Impatiently, year after year, he has identified opportunities for the United States to help the people of Iran replace their sinister and menacing rulers. After each new post on the subject, Ledeen signed off with, “Faster please.”
In Accomplice to Evil, Ledeen seems almost out of patience. The failure to grapple with the challenge of Iran is more than a strategic failure, he argues; it’s a moral failure. Just as few in the democratic countries took Adolf Hitler at his word when he repeatedly promised to dominate the world and kill all the Jews; and few could squarely acknowledge the genocidal lengths to which the Communists would go; so today the threat from the radical Islamists is minimized, whitewashed, or wished away.
Of the Carter administration, Ledeen writes, “The failure to comprehend what Khomeini was all about contributed mightily to the American debacle in Iran, and to subsequent failure of American policy, for the policy makers — from Carter down — did not take seriously the possibility that Khomeini might be worse than the shah.” Incomparably worse, as it turned out. During the war with Iraq, Iran sent tens of thousands of children to their deaths “clearing” minefields. Before departure, they were issued plastic keys — to open the gates of paradise.
But Americans have doggedly refused to recognize the nature of the regime or the Islamist movement it spearheads. Ledeen writes of the Carter State Department: “In what was to become a great leitmotif of the next 30 years, American diplomats desperately worked for an agreement at all costs.” When the Iranians presented brutal demands that the U.S. turn over all Iranian “criminals” who had taken refuge in America, an assistant secretary of state — in words that could have been ghostwritten by the current occupant of the Oval Office — explained, “The Iranian suspicions of us were only natural in the post-revolutionary situation#…#but after a transition period common interests could provide a basis for future cooperation.”
Even after the regime had held our diplomats hostage in Iran for more than a year, the Carter administration “approved a series of humiliating concessions” in the hope of securing their release. It was that way to the bitter end. On the day before he left office, Carter issued Executive Order 12283, which immunized the Iranian government from lawsuits arising from the seizure of the embassy.
President Obama deludes himself that “outreach” to the mullahs represents some sort of new departure in American policy. In fact, every administration since Carter’s has repeatedly attempted to “engage” the mullahs. Even the Bush administration “pursued accommodation#…#as vigorously as any of the others.” From pages 155 to 159, Ledeen lists the scores of publicly reported meetings between top Iranian and U.S. officials in just the seven years between 2001 and 2008. One example gives the flavor: On Nov. 17, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell praised the efforts of “my three colleagues, the EU three, [who] played a very, very helpful role in going to Tehran#…#and coming back with a very, very, positive and productive result.”
It was nothing of the kind. But that didn’t prevent the Bush administration from continuing to lower its bucket into this dry well. The Obama administration, seasoning its approach with fawning genuflections, is taking accommodation to a new level — a fact that is not lost on the Iranian people who chant, “Obama. Obama. Either you’re with us or you’re with them,” as they dodge the batons and bullets of the Basij militia.
Ledeen’s advice is to offer strong moral support to the Iranian people. Reagan’s open advocacy for the dissidents in the Soviet empire gave them courage and hope. Ledeen would also supply reliable news about what is happening in Iran through every available outlet. The Iranians are huge consumers of Internet news (Farsi is the fourth most common language online), but they need cell phones, satellite phones, laptops, servers, and BlackBerrys. Every successful revolution, Ledeen reminds us, “including ours,” required outside assistance. Third, he would destroy the assembly sites for the weapons Iran is providing to the Taliban, Mahdi Army, and al-Qaeda.
Defeating those he has elsewhere called the “terror masters” in Tehran would drive a stake through the heart of radical Islam. “The defeat of the principal sponsor sends shock waves through the movement and discredits the ideology.” But only if we can overcome our self-delusions about the enemy first.
Apothegms for the Age of Obama -- By: Thomas Sowell | read this item
Sometimes we seem like people on a pleasure boat drifting down the Niagara River, unaware that there are waterfalls up ahead. I don’t know what people think is going to happen when a nation that already sponsors international terrorism has nuclear bombs to give to terrorists around the world.
Since this is an era when many people are concerned about “fairness” and “social justice,” what is your “fair share” of what someone else has worked for?
Here is a math problem for you: Assume that the legislation establishing government control of medical care is passed and that it “brings down the cost of medical care.” You pay $500 a year less for your medical care, but the new costs put on employers is passed on to consumers, so that you pay $300 a year more for groceries and $200 a year more for gasoline, while the new mandates put on insurance companies raise your premiums by $300 a year, how much money have you saved?
I seldom read fiction — and I tend to regard autobiographies as fiction.
In response to news of President Obama receiving the Nobel Prize for peace, an e-mail from a reader recalled a black classmate’s comments upon graduating from high school many years ago. When asked to list the advantages and disadvantages of being black, the black student facetiously listed as an advantage “being praised for infinitesimal accomplishments.”
Many colleges claim that they develop “leaders.” All too often, that means turning out graduates who cannot feel fulfilled unless they are telling other people what to do. There are already too many people like that, and they are a menace to everyone else’s freedom.
Some people are so busy being clever that they don’t have time enough to be wise.
No one likes to admit having been played for a fool. So it will probably take a mushroom cloud over some American city before some Obama supporters wake up. Even so, the true believers among the survivors will probably say that this was all George W. Bush’s fault.
Stepping beyond your competence can be like stepping off a cliff. Too many people with brilliance and talent within some field do not realize how ignorant — or, worse yet, misinformed — they are when talking like philosopher-kings about other things.
There has probably never before been as drastic a decline in the quality of the vice president as when Dick Cheney was replaced by Joe Biden. Yet the New York Times is lionizing Biden as a wise counselor to President Obama. When you support the liberal agenda, that makes you brilliant ex-officio in the media, whether or not you are vice president — and whether or not you have even common sense.
Government pressures on mortgage lenders to accept less than the full amount they are owed may win votes for politicians, since there are far more borrowers than lenders. But how much future lending can be expected when the lenders know that politicians are ready to intervene at any time to prevent them from getting their money back?
Some people think that the Obama administration is going to get rid of Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, making him the scapegoat for its economics failures. This would be consistent with the president’s tendency to act as if the people under him are not carrying out his policies. But if they get rid of Geithner too early, that will not help if things still do not get better after he is gone and before the 2010 elections.
People who are urging us to do things to win the approval of other countries seem to put an excessive value on other countries’ approval, as distinguished from their respect that we can lose by such bowing to “world opinion.” Do the world champion New York Yankees try to curry favor with teams that are also-rans?
Can you name the only .400 hitter who never won a batting title during his whole career? Or a pitcher who stole home? If you are one of the first ten to answer either of these questions, you will receive a free copy of my most recent book, The Housing Boom and Bust.
Polling and Political Wrap-Up, 11/30/09 | read this item
The holiday weekend has now past, and the political news game can be expected to ramp up a little bit in the next few weeks, before slackening yet again during the political news desert known as the Christmas to New Years time period.
So, let us make hay while we can, with the Monday edition of the Wrap:
MI-Gov: GOP Continues To Lead In Gubernatorial Race One blue state where the electoral calculus needs to change a great deal for Democrats to keep their governorship is in the state of Michigan. Michigan voters appear to be taking out the aggressions associated with the state’s economic woes on the Democratic Party, if a new poll by Mitchell Communications is any indication. The GOP frontrunner, state Attorney General Mike Cox, has a sixteen point edge over Democratic frontrunner John Cherry. Against a purported challenge by Democratic state House speaker Andy Dillon, the margin moves to blowout status. Cox’s biggest electoral peril may be in a GOP primary: hard-right GOP Congressman Peter Hoekstra only trails Cox by three points (27-24) according to the poll.
WI-Gov: Barrett Even Money Or Better, According to PPP Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is no worse than dead even with his Republican rivals, according to a new survey released over the holiday weekend by the crew over at PPP (PDF File). Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker is the only Republican that can keep Barrett out of the lead (they are tied at 40% each). Against former Governor Tommy Thompson, Barrett holds a modest lead of 46-41. Against former Congressman (and 1998 Senate candidate) Mark Neumann, Barrett holds a two-point edge (41-39).
UT-Gov: Dems Might Draw Legit Candidate, Despite Uphill Struggle Most candidates don’t take solace in a poll where the incumbent leads them by nearly 25 points. But this is Utah, and he is a Democrat, so perhaps a double-digit lead might be good news, after all. The candidate, a potentially strong one, is Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon. Despite the fact that he trails incumbent Republican Gary Herbert 56-32, he seems more likely than not to make the run.
Polls: State Approval Ratings Paints Picture of Ticked Off Electorate Adding to their semi-regular series of tracking polls in individual states, the team over at SurveyUSA paints a picture of a very disenchanted electorate. In nine states (five of which were carried by President Obama), only one politician (Charles Schumer of New York) managed to crack 60% job approval. President Obama’s in the states are quite low (low enough, in some cases, to allow for some skepticism):
Approval Ratings for President Obama, Selected States, SurveyUSA
Just a reminder that I can now be found at Twitter where much pontificating on politics (and sports, and occasionally other matters) ensues…
NH-02: Democrats picked up another candidate in the battle to replace Paul Hodes in New Hampshire’s 2nd Congressional district. State legislator John DeJoie is throwing his hat in the ring, joining attorney Ann McLane Kuster in the Democratic primary. The GOP is likely to coalesce around former Congressman Charlie Bass if he follows through, as expected, with a comeback bid.
MT-Pres: SurveyUSA is not the only pollster showing flagging Obama approval in potentially amenable territory. A new poll from Montana State University shows that President Obama currently has a 37% job approval rating in the state. Obama only narrowly lost the state in 2008, getting edged 50-47 by John McCain.
CT-Sen: One of my favorite daily stops for political news, Ron Gunzberger’s Politics1, floats a pretty intriguing trial balloon in today’s edition. Noting that the Connecticut GOP seems intent on winnowing the field in their Senate challenge to Democratic incumbent Chris Dodd, Gunzberger wonders aloud whether GOP candidate (and Ron Paulite) Peter Schiff might find himself jumping from the Republican primary, but staying in the Senate race as the nominee of the Libertarian Party. If that actually happened, it would be a welcome sight for Dodd, who could benefit from a free-spending right-of-center third party candidate.
CT-03: It is not likely to result in a major-league challenge, but another Democratic incumbent drew GOP opposition in 2010. Jerry Labriola Jr. has announced a challenge to longtime Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro in the heavily Democratic 3rd district. Labriola has a political pedigree of sorts–his father was a former Republican state legislator who ran against Joe Lieberman for the United States Senate in 1994.
PA-Gov: In a competitive primary for Governor, Democrats are starting now to line up behind their preferred candidates in the 2010 open-seat gubernatorial campaign. State Auditor Jack Wagner announced endorsements from county officials in Lebanon and Jefferson County, while Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato countered with state legislators Michael Gerber and Daylin Leach, especially critical for him since they hail from SE Pennsylvania, far from Onorato’s base in the Pittsburgh area.
CA-03: The once crowded Democratic primary to challenge potentially embattled Republican incumbent Dan Lungren (who drew just 49% of the vote in 2008) has now become a primary of one. Physician Ami Bera put together two solid quarters of fundraising (north of $600K total), which sent first Gary Davis and now Bill Slaton to the sidelines. Slaton dropped out today and endorsed Bera, which should give Bera a clear shot at Lungren, who narrowly defeated Bill Durston 49-44 in the 2008 election cycle.
NH-01: The field challenging Democratic Sophomore Rep. Carol Shea-Porter grows a bit today, with the news that businessman Richard Ashooh might also make a bid in 2010. Ashooh is a Sununu ally, which might make some wonder if the NRCC’s anointed candidate here, Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta, might not necessarily be as beloved in New Hampshire as he is in the halls of the GOP offices in DC.
CO-02: Best rationale for a candidacy ever: Curtis Harris is running a longshot campaign against Democratic freshman Rep. Jared Polis as a candidate of the Libertarian Party. He wants you to know that he is running for Congress because he really, really doesn’t like Congress. Sounds somewhat masochistic to me, really…send me to Congress, because I am against Congress?
