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 17,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:55 P.M. ET: 

SEE HOW IT FEELS – There is an active attempt to turn the firing of Jill Abramson as executive editor of The New York Times into a decisive moment in feminism.  Now maybe the publisher of The Times, Pinch Sulzberger, understands what it's like to face the kind of accusations that his editorial-page editors throw at others regularly.  He is fighting back.  From capitalnewyork.com:  "New York Times Co. president and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. issued a statement on Saturday afternoon pushing back against stories that the paper fired former executive editor Jill Abramson in part because she inquired into salary inequities between herself and her male colleagues.  'Perhaps the saddest outcome of my decision to replace Jill Abramson as executive editor of The New York Times is that it has been cast by many as an example of the unequal treatment of women in the workplace,' Sulzberger said in the statement. 'Rather than accepting that this was a situation involving a specific individual who, as we all do, has strengths and weaknesses, a shallow and factually incorrect storyline has emerged.'  Following Abramson's firing this week, The New Yorker's Ken Auletta reported that Abramson had hired a lawyer after learning that her salary was less than that of predecessor Bill Keller."  I have no idea where the truth lies here, but, despite my criticisms of Sulberger's management of the paper, I think it's almost impossible that he would risk a lawsuit over a pay equity issue involving the paper's first female executive editor.  I suspect this really was an issue of management style.

A NEW WARNING THAT WILL PROBABLY BE IGNORED – From The Hill:  "The chances that a terrorist will try to target the United States are growing increasingly high, according to the former head of the National Security Agency.  'The probability is growing,' Gen. Keith Alexander told The New Yorker in an interview.  'What I saw at NSA is that there is a lot more coming our way, just as someone is revealing all the tools and the capabilities we have,' he added, referring to leaks from former contractor Edward Snowden.  'What that tells me is we’re at greater risk,' warned Alexander."  Americans do not seem to be in a "security" mood these days, and Obama has done his best to divert attention from the threat of terror.  We'll have to be woken up the hard way.   As for Snowden, he is a turncoat and probably a traitor.  I continue to wonder how an unstable character like that had access to so much classified information.

FIGHTING SHAPE? – From CNBC:  "Want to improve national security without spending billions on a new weapons system? Slim down America's kids and teach them to read, some retired generals say.  The Army says more than three-fourths of 17- to 24-year-olds today are not eligible to join the military because they aren't fit enough or don't meet other basic requirements, such as having a high school diploma or being able to read or write properly.  That's got some of the nation's highest-ranking retired military officials advocating a radical way to improve national security—improve the lives of children. 'It's not just a school problem. It's not just a Department (of Education) problem. It's a national security issue and it needs to be prioritized that way,' said retired Maj. Gen. D. Allen Youngman."  Imagine, this is the country that sent a man to the Moon 45 years ago.

May 17,  2014     Permalink

OH DEAR, OH DEAR, WILL SOMEONE PLEASE TELL HILLARY – AT 8:31 A.M. ET:   You know, keeping records is usually a good thing.  But there can be these moments of embarrassment.  From Fox: 

As Hollywood hotshots protest the iconic Beverly Hills Hotel over its ownership by Brunei's sultan -- and his recent full-fledged embrace of Islamic law -- it turns out the Brunei government has financial connections to another American institution: The Clinton Foundation.

The nonprofit foundation lists Brunei alongside Kuwait, Oman and Qatar as donors that gave between $1 million and $5 million through last year. The foundation confirmed the donation from Brunei was made in 2002, in connection with the construction of the Clinton Presidential Library in Arkansas.

"The Clinton Foundation's impact would not be possible without the generous support of our donors," the foundation's website reads. "Their contributions have made a difference in the lives of tens of millions across the world."

The contribution could prove an uncomfortable detail in the foundation's financial records, particularly as Hillary Clinton weighs a possible presidential run. Though The Clinton Foundation has thus far avoided any major controversy over the matter, a Brunei connection has caused headaches for the Beverly Hills Hotel on the other side of the country.

Brunei’s Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah has come under heavy criticism since the ultra-wealthy leader, who has been in power for decades, embraced a harsh Islamic penal code for his southeast Asian nation of roughly 408,000 residents. The change would make adultery, abortion and same-sex relationships offenses punishable by ancient methods -- flogging, or even stoning.

COMMENT:  Let's see which reporter has the guts, and professionalism, to ask Hillary, directly, about this.  It's a headline story when celebrities boycott the Beverly Hills Hotel because it is owned by aforementioned sultan of Brunei.  Should they now be boycotting Hillary for accepting the sultan's cash?  If not, why not?  Why don't I think I'll get answers.

Hillary would probably say she never knew about it.  I mean, amounts like that – a million, five million – who would notice?  Besides, at this point, what difference does it make?

May 17, 2014       Permalink

SUSPICIONS – AT 8:19 A.M. ET:  There is a possible new scandal brewing in the land of climate "research."  This has the potential to turn into a major story, if it is vigorously pursued.   From Fox: 

Some are calling it the new "Climategate."

A paper by Lennart Bengtsson, a respected research fellow and climatologist at Britain's University of Reading, was rejected last February by a leading academic journal after a reviewer found it "harmful" to the climate change agenda. The incident is prompting new charges that the scientific community is muzzling dissent when it comes to global warming.

"[Bengtsson] has been a very prolific publisher and was considered one of the top scientists in the mainstream climate community," said Marc Morano, of the website ClimateDepot.com, which is devoted to questioning global warming.

Bengtsson had grown increasingly skeptical of the scientific consensus, often cited by President Obama, that urgent action is needed to curb carbon emissions before climate change exacts an irreversible toll on the planet with extreme drought, storms and rising seas levels.

The president repeatedly has rejected naysayers in the climate debate -- most recently, when he spoke May 9 in Mountainview, Calif. "We've still got some climate deniers who shout loud, but they're wasting everybody's time on a settled debate,” he said.

The administration recently released a comprehensive climate report that critics worry will be used to justify additional environmental regulations.

Bengtsson's paper, submitted to the journal Environmental Research Letters, found that greenhouse gas emissions might be less harmful and cause less warming than computer models project. For that, Morano said, Bengtssonpaid a steep price.

"They've threatened him. They've bullied him. They've pulled his papers. They're now going through everything they can to smear his reputation. And the ‘they’ I'm referring to is the global warming establishment," Morano said.

The Times of London reported that Bengtsson resigned from the advisory board of a think tank after being subjected to “McCarthy-style pressure” from other academics. Pressure even reportedly came from one U.S. government scientist.

COMMENT:  Who will have the courage to follow this up?  Who will expose the corruption, the huge amount of grant money involved, the politics of science?

Obama has made it clear his mind is closed.  (When was it ever open?)   And the scientific establishment has made it clear that it will destroy anyone who doesn't go along.

Yes, McCarthyism. 

May 17, 2014     Permalink

TROUBLE IN VIENNA? – AT 8:11 A.M. ET:  There are some signs of trouble in the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.  I certainly hope so.  Trouble means the West might finally be developing a spine, and treating an Iranian nuclear weapon as a major threat.  From the Jerusalem Post: 

WASHINGTON -- Negotiations over Iran's nuclear program appear to have hit a wall, as Iran charged Western powers on Friday with "excessive demands" for a peaceful resolution to the crisis while the United States warned that the parties are running out of time for diplomacy.

The fourth round of negotiations in Vienna, with the goal of reaching a comprehensive solution to the longstanding nuclear impasse, ended on Friday without a press conference from the parties— a linchpin in previous rounds between Iran, the US, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany.

An interim deal reached last fall grants world powers and Iran until July 20 to negotiate a comprehensive plan of action. That deadline, however, can be extended an additional six months, should all parties agree that more time is needed.

An EU official told members of the press on Friday that meetings had been agreed to by the parties for June and July, though no dates were specified.

"The West should avoid having excessive demands," an Iranian source close to the country's negotiating team was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars News Agency. "The Iranian nation has shown that pressure on them always backfires."

Iran's deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said on Friday that "no tangible progress" had been made— but that negotiations were first hitting sensitive points of contention, and that progress would invariably be slow.

"Talks have been slow and difficult. Significant gaps remain," a US official said after the talks concluded. "Iran still has some hard decisions to make. We're concerned that progress is not being made and that time is short."

COMMENT:  I remain concerned that, faced with the possibility of no deal, Barack Obama will cave, and that we'll come away with a useless piece of paper.  It is in his nature, which includes a certain contempt for his own country.

May 17,  2014     Permalink

MAY 16,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:45 P.M. ET:

ANOTHER BRILLIANT DECISION – From Breitbart:  "The Los Angeles NAACP chapter that withdrew its lifetime achievement award to embattled Clippers owner Donald Sterling last month honored Al Sharpton with its 'Person of the Year' award on Thursday evening, in Sterling's absence.  Sharpton took a dig at Sterling in his acceptance speech, according to Frank Stoltze of Southern California Public Radio. 'Sterling may be rich but he’s not as rich as the history of this organization,' Sharpton told guests at the gala dinner.  I guess some bigots are a little more acceptable than other bigots.

MAJOR EDUCATIONAL NEWS – The complex issue of chocolate milk is now at the fore.  From Fox: "A ban on chocolate milk may be too much for the governor of Connecticut to stomach.  The state General Assembly earlier this week approved nutrition legislation that threatened to remove chocolate milk from public schools. But, drawing a line in the sand in the nanny-state debate, Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy announced Friday that on the matter of lactose legislation -- he is intolerant.   'This specific bill has not yet come to the Governor’s desk and will be reviewed in detail when it arrives,' Malloy spokesman Andrew Doba said in a statement.  'However, on the broader topic at hand, the governor is not supportive of banning chocolate milk in public schools. While we must be extremely mindful of the nutritional value of what’s offered to students, ensuring an appropriate array of options helps to ensure that kids received the calcium and other nutrients they need.'"  Finally chocolate milk has its MacArthur.  We are saved.

NOT THAT HOT – From Reuters:  "Most Americans have a favorable view of former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and think she will win the 2016 presidential election, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Thursday.  Fifty-seven percent of Americans who were aware of Clinton hold a favorable opinion of her, compared to 43 percent who see her negatively, according to the online survey. Nearly one-quarter of Republicans said they had a favorable view of Clinton, a Democrat."  Frankly, for a woman who's been a national figure for as long as FDR was when he died, those aren't great numbers.  She was polling in the 60s not long ago.  If she slips another five points to, say, 52%, the party elders will start to worry.  And candidates almost always slip as soon as they declare their candidacy and the other side opens fire.

May 16,  2014     Permalink

ANTI-GOVERNMENT FERVOR – AT 8:36 A.M. ET:  A new Fox poll dramatically demonstrates the loss of faith in government that has occurred during the Obama administration. 

When it comes to Washington controversies, most American voters think Benghazi, the IRS and the government’s electronic surveillance program are serious matters. A Fox News poll also finds that less than four in 10 voters trust the federal government.

The new poll, released Thursday, finds 37 percent of voters answer “yes” when asked: “would you say you generally trust the federal government?” Six in 10 say they don’t trust the government, down a touch from a high of 62 percent (June 2013 and July 2011).

One thing that is sure to erode trust is a scandal, and 78 percent of voters consider the Obama administration’s handling of the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi a serious matter, including 52 percent who say “very serious.” Just over half (53 percent) see government surveillance of everyday Americans as “very serious” and 44 percent feel that way about the IRS targeting conservative groups.

Partisanship also shapes views on trustworthiness. In 2002, the first time this question was asked on a Fox News poll, 47 percent of Democrats said yes, they trust the government. That increased to 53 percent in February 2009, about a month after President Obama was inaugurated, and it stands at 55 percent in the new poll. The trend is reversed and more dramatic among Republicans: 63 percent trusted the government in 2002, while 32 percent felt that way in 2009 and just 19 percent trust Uncle Sam today.

For independents, trust was 53 percent in 2002, 35 percent in 2009 and 31 percent now.

In all, that’s an increase in trust of eight percentage points among Democrats from the days of the George W. Bush administration, and a decrease of 44 points among Republicans and 22 points among independents.

COMMENT:  If Republicans can't capitalize on this kind of discontent, they don't deserve to be in business.  We'll decide that after November.  Anyone have openings for used Republicans? 

May 16, 2014      Permalink

SABATO PREDICTS – AT 8:27 A.M. ET:   University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato believes the Dems are in bad shape for November.  I'll believe it when I see the election results, but from his mouth to you know whose ears.  From The Politico: 

Last week, Republican primary voters passed their first Senate test, producing a North Carolina nominee, Thom Tillis, who is merely imperfect, not catastrophic. After the disasters of recent years, national Republicans will happily take it.

The North Carolina result did nothing to change the expectation among most observers that the Republicans have a 50-50 or better shot at taking the Senate majority. It might even have enhanced those odds. The conventional wisdom is reasonable: We know that the president is unpopular, the president’s party typically performs poorly in midterms and the Democrats are overextended on this year’s Senate map. One of the ways the Republicans could hurt their chances is by running bad candidates in some of these races. Tillis might turn out to be that kind of candidate, but he was clearly the most credible nominee in the primary field.

So where is the Senate right now? Hypothetically, there’s still a wide range of potential outcomes – and all the likeliest ones involve at least some kind of Republican wave, perhaps delivering the magic six-seat gain that would dethrone Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Let’s adopt a mariner’s, or a meteorologist’s, terminology to make sense of the situation. Democrats hope for no wave at all: Something akin to “beach week,” the post-finals getaway that some of my University of Virginia students are celebrating this very instant on the Atlantic seaboard. Beach week for the Democrats, though, is about as likely as the undergrads’ dream of putting off adulthood. More realistically, Democrats can hope for fearsome-sounding waves that crash loudly but do little structural damage. Republicans, on the other hand, are rooting for an impressive tidal wave, if not a full-fledged historic tsunami.

COMMENT:  My own sense is that Republicans will make gains, but that almost all the races will be difficult.  The Dems run a superb ground game – getting their people to the polls.  Even though this is difficult in an off-year election six years into a presidency, the Dems are also superior at scaring their base into believing a Republican victory will mean their children will be taken away from them and sold to Exxon Mobil. 

Overconfidence is the problem this year.

May 16, 2014       Permalink 

UNDERSTANDING THE ENEMY – AT 8:16 A.M. ET:   Our enemies in the world constantly do us the service of reminding us who and what they are.  From the New York Post: 

KHARTOUM, Sudan — A Sudanese woman doctor who married a Christian man and who was convicted earlier this week on charges of “apostasy” was sentenced to death on Thursday, judicial officials said.

According to the Sudanese officials, 26-year-old Meriam Ibrahim, whose father was Muslim, was convicted on Sunday and given four days to repent and escape death. She was sentenced after that grace period expired, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with regulations.

The BBC reported the woman’s death by hanging will not be carried out until two years after the birth of her child.

How kind of them.

The sentencing drew condemnation from Western embassies in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, and international rights groups, including Amnesty International.

Only Western embassies?  Hmm.

The rights group reported the woman is eight months pregnant.

The court in Khartoum also ordered Ibrahim be given 100 lashes for committing “zena” — an Arabic word for illegitimate sex — for having sexual relations with a non-Muslim man.

The couple married in 2011 and have a child, born 18 months ago. Under Sudanese law, Ibrahim’s marriage to a non-Muslim is regarded as void.

COMMENT:  Haven't heard a word from "feminist" groups.  And, of course, you may be sure that the multiculturalist crowd will be out there labeling any critic of this barbarism as Islamophobic.  That's the game these days.

Oh, where are the college students, the ones who shouted down Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Condi Rice?  I guess they're just too busy fighting American imperialism.

May 16, 2014       Permalink

BILL SABOTAGING HILL? – AT 8:05 A.M. ET:  I've kind of wondered whether Bill Clinton really wants Hillary to be president.  I mean, share the spotlight?  Get the same Oval Office?  Have her own portrait on the wall?  Nah. 

And Bill just said something that may confirm my suspicions.  Of course, our mainstream media was a bit shy about reporting it.  But not London's Daily Mail: 

Former President Bill Clinton divulged on Wednesday that it took former secretary of state Hillary Clinton 'six months of very serious work' last year to recover from a fainting spell in December 2012 that resulted in a concussion and blood clot.

Her long recovery is 'something she never low-balled,' Bill said.

But Bill's timeline contradicts the State Department's claims just after the conclusion of Hillary's treatment in January 2013 that 'she seems to be fully recovered.'

Hillary Clinton took ill at some point the week of December 9, 2012, just as she was supposed to testify before a Congressional committee about the terrorist attack that took four American lives in Benghazi, Libya three months before.

After falling in her home, Clinton incurred a concussion. The State Department did not say what day the accident occurred, but it described her concussion on December 13 as 'not severe.'

COMMENT:  This subject became current again after Karl Rove suggested that Hillary might have suffered brain damage.  Although he walked back the comment, it was one of those "dumb Republican" moments that can hand sympathy and votes to the other side. 

But despite Rove's blunder, Hillary's health is clearly an issue.  If she has an episode between now and the campaign, it could dim her prospects, in part because it would look nervy of her to run – putting herself before the country.

There was a time when we knew little about the health of presidential candidates.  The public was not told in 1960 that Jack Kennedy had Addison's Disease, which could be fatal.  Barack Obama has released little of his medical history.  We know he was born and can walk across a room. 

So we'll wait for Hillary's decision.  The Republicans should be prepared to battle any candidate.

May 16,  2014     Permalink