WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER 16,  2009

IDIOTS - AT 9:08 P.M. ET:  Do you want to know who's trying to determine your future at the climate-change conference in Copenhagen?  Examine the delegates' reaction to the philosophical wisdom of Hugo Chavez.  Read on, from Australia's Herald-Sun:

President Chavez brought the house down.

When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really an imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.

When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.

But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.

COMMENT:  Case closed.

December 16, 2009   Permalink

 

SWEET REVENGE, OR NON-SWEET REVENGE - AT 8:33 P.M. ET:  Hillary Clinton isn't known as the queen of sweetness.  But she must be feeling mighty royal today, after a poll showed her far more popular than her boss:

A new poll of avid news watchers shows that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a much higher approval rating than the man she once campaigned against and now works for, President Barack Obama.

In the poll of 800 registered voters who are self-identified “news watchers,” Clinton had a 75 percent approval rating and a 21 percent disapproval rating overall. Obama, in contrast, had a 51 percent approval and a 45 percent disapproval rating.

The Secretary of State has conducted several well-received foreign trips in recent months and has not been as closely identified with the more contentious elements of the Administration’s agenda, including the health care fight, the federal deficit and the Wall Street bailouts. And she has not been subjected to nearly the same media and partisan scrutiny as the president. Obama, meanwhile, has been on national television on a daily basis tackling a wide range of difficult issues.

The poll was conducted by the nonpartisan Clarus Research Group from December 7th to the 12th, and it asked for opinions of the top Cabinet secretaries and White House officials. Its finding on Obama and Clinton mirrors that of earlier polls – in October, for example, a Gallup poll found that Clinton had become more popular than the president.

And...

The next highest-rated cabinet secretary in the survey was Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who notched a 69 percent overall approval rate with a 78 percent approval among Democrats and 63 percent among both Republicans and independents.

COMMENT:  I think the analysis in this well-written story is correct, that Clinton hasn't been associated with the controversial elements of Obama's agenda - like the health-care package.  In addition, she projects a tougher image than the president, which doesn't hurt in foreign affairs.

At the same time, a note of caution:  This poll was taken among news junkies.  Those without the addiction may feel differently.

But if more general polling shows the same result, Clinton can be an excellent political position.  Obama's political operatives may, for example, suggest that she replace Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket in 2012.  They might see her as an electoral asset, which Biden is not, and she might see the move as setting her up for a presidental run in 2016, when she'll only be 68.

December 16, 2009   Permalink

 

DEAD HEAT IN THE SUNSHINE STATE - AT 7:41 P.M. ET:  An intense competition is underway in Florida for the GOP Senate nomination, and polls show a dead heat.

Governor Charlie Crist was expected to have the nomination handed to him on a silver platter, or an orange platter, or whatever they use down there.  But Crist is seen as a moderate, and a conservative, Marco Rubio, has mounted a stiff challenge:

MIAMI (CBS4) A new poll has found that Florida Governor Charlie Crist's campaign for the U.S. Senate is currently in deep trouble. The new Rasmussen poll of likely GOP voters found Crist and his Republican opponent, Marco Rubio, are tied with 43 percent of the vote. This is a huge swing from just a few months ago when most experts believed Crist would win in a landslide.

While Crist's numbers have been in an almost free fall, Rubio's name recognition amongst Republicans has rapidly grown. The new poll found 34 percent of GOP voters now view Rubio "very favorably." In the same poll in August, Rubio's "very favorable" ratings were at 18 percent.

On the flip side, Crist's numbers have fallen off a cliff. Only 19 percent of likely GOP voters have a "very favorable" opinion of the governor. According to Rasmussen, that's a double-digit decline since August.

And a Rasmussen poll on the general election shows this:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Florida finds former state House Speaker Marco Rubio leading Democrat Kendrick Meek 49% to 35%. Governor Charlie

Crist leads Meek 42% to 36%.

For Rubio, those numbers are little changes since October and August.
Crist’s edge over Meek is down from a 12-point lead in October.

The reason for the difference is that 79% of conservatives support Rubio but only 62% say Crist can count on their vote. Twenty-four percent (24%) of conservatives say they’d prefer either a third party option or are undecided. If Crist were to win the nomination, it is likely that many of those voters would end up supporting him over Meek.

COMMENT:  This will have to play out further before we get a clear picture of either the Republican nomination contest or the general election.  Rubio is still not that well known, whereas Crist is the governor.  As people get to know Rubio, and his views, his numbers can change considerably.

Kendrick Meek is an African American congressman.  Race may well be affecting his numbers.  If the Democrats choose another candidate, the contest may well tighten considerably. 

December 16, 2009   Permalink 

 

COPENHAGEN AND HOT AIR - AT 7:21 P.M. ET:  Even though we're told this is the last chance to save the planet, and maybe the entire Solar System, the delegates at the climate change conference in Copenhagen are having a tough time doing salvation:

COPENHAGEN (AP) -- The 10-day-old climate talks ran into disputes and paralysis as they entered a critical stage Wednesday, just two days before President Barack Obama and more than 100 other national leaders hope to sign a historic agreement to fight global warming.

That's right.  Barack is coming.  The man can't stay home for more than a week.  Doesn't he like the house?

Poorer nations stalled the talks in resistance to what they saw as efforts by the rich to impose decisions falling short of strong commitments to reduce greenhouse gases and to help those countries hurt by climate change. Conference observers said, however, that negotiators still had time to reach agreements.

And if they don't, Copenhagen will sink into the sea immediately.  Pass it on.

Outside the meeting site in Copenhagen's suburbs, police fired pepper spray and beat protesters with batons as hundreds of demonstrators sought to disrupt the 193-nation conference, the latest action in days of demonstrations to demand "climate justice" -- firm steps to combat global warming. Police said 230 protesters were detained.

I have to go into New York City tomorrow for a briefing on space weapons.  It's expected to be cold and windy.  I am demanding that Mayor Bloomberg produce climate justice...or else.

Earlier, behind closed doors, negotiators dealing with core issues debated until just before dawn without setting new goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions or for financing poorer countries' efforts to cope with coming climate change, key elements of any deal.

"I regret to report we have been unable to reach agreement," John Ashe of Antigua, chairman of one negotiating group, told the conference.

COMMENT:  It's the "financing poorer countries" that's the big deal.  A lot of this is about money.  If our aid programs to "poorer" nations can serve as any guide, a lot of that money will go down the corruption drain.  But we'll feel good about ourselves.

Doesn't look like this conference is accomplishing much.  Maybe the delegates, like a majority of the American people, are starting to wonder just how much of a "crisis" the world is actually facing.

December 16, 2009   Permalink

 

AND NOW THE TRUTH - AT 10:55 A.M. ET:  Well, finally it's out there, for the world to see.  Many of us knew this, but were waiting for final, scientific confirmation before going public:  The real secret to saving the planet is...cows.

It was always the cows.  But our own bigotry and lack of cultural sensitivity made us blind to the reality.  Now, we've got to get past that dark period.  The truth hurts, as Fox reports:

The United States is counting on cows to help save the planet.

U.S. Secretary Tom Vilsack announced an agreement with the American dairy industry Tuesday to reduce the industry's greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent by 2020, mostly by convincing farmers to capture the methane from cow manure that otherwise would be released into the atmosphere.

"This historic agreement, the first of its kind, will help us achieve the ambitious goal of drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions while benefiting farmers," Vilsack said at the U.N. climate talks. "(The) use of manure of technology is a win for everyone."

Agriculture accounts for about 7 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.

The plan calls for persuading more American farmers to purchase an anaerobic digester, which essentially converts cow manure into electricity. The problem is that, so far, only 2 percent of U.S. dairy farmers are using the technology, mostly because it is too costly for family farmers.

Oh, but now the technology will spread.  And someday, when you see Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid on some device powered by electricity, you'll understand what's making their voices possible.

You know, historians tell us that Joe McCarthy was advised by his mentors to stop his Congressional hearings and spend his time advancing Wisconsin cows.  If he'd done that, Joe could've been president.  But he had that same demeaning attitude toward cows that the rest of us did, and he went down the wrong path.

It's time to thank a cow.  If a cow moos at you, just say, "Thanks Elsie, and thanks for my microwave oven and vacuum cleaner."

No glass of milk will ever taste the same.

December 16, 2009   Permalink 

 

LATEST POLLS - AT 9:58 A.M. ET:  Although polls differ from pollster to pollster, the general trend cannot be pleasing to the Democratic Party or to the White House:

Rasmussen reports that the Republicans continue their lead in the generic Congressional ballot:

Republican candidates have bounced back to a seven-point lead over Democrats in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

Support for GOP candidates is up just one point over the past week, but support for Democrats slipped two points. A week ago, the Republican lead was down to four points from a seven-point margin the last week in November.

Republicans have held the lead on the ballot for over four months now. Democrats currently have majority control of both the House and Senate.

This doesn't mean the Republican Party is all that loved.  Most polls show that the GOP gain has come largely because of the unpopularity of the Democratic Congressional leadership. 

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows another drop for President Obama:

Fifty percent of Americans in this ABC News/Washington Post poll approve of the president's work overall, down 6 points in the last month; nearly as many, 46 percent, now disapprove. On the economy, 52 percent disapprove, a majority for the first time. On the deficit, his worst score, 56 percent disapprove.

And the grimness continues:

There are further challenges. Obama's approval rating among independents, the crucial center of national politics, is 43 percent, a new low and down from a peak of 67 percent in the heady days a month after he took office. He's down by 9 points this month among moderates. He's got just 41 percent approval among whites, vs. 76 percent among nonwhites; and just 42 percent among seniors, a reliable voting group (looking to the 2010 midterms) and one particularly disenchanted with health care reform.

We stress that the 2010 midterms are still 11 months away, many lifetimes in politics.  But one thing that we should point out is that the GOP has recruited a number of excellent Senate candidates in many states, a reversal from the party's mediocre recruiting record in recent elections.  You can't beat somebody with nobody, but if you've got somebody, well...you never know.

Early polls, but encouraging.

December 16, 2009   Permalink

 

THE ARROGANCE OF THE LEFT - AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  The Democratic left is becoming increasingly delusional.  The leftists believe they are a huge army, representing the downtrodden, the oppressed, the tofu nation, and those on the dean's list, and that they must fight to the end for their vastly popular goals.

If they continue the way they're going, their next meeting will be held in a closet. 

The Politico reports their latest Alamo-style stand: 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has rejected a Senate plan to include amendments to the Patriot Act in a larger Pentagon funding bill covering the soaring cost of the war in Afghanistan, arguing that to do so would lead to a “revolt on the left,” according to Democratic insiders.

Pelosi’s decision, announced at a closed-door leadership meeting Monday, has forced Democrats to go with a backup plan of extending the Patriot Act until early next year, essentially punting the controversial issue into 2010, when a broader agreement with the Senate can be struck. The vote is now scheduled to take place early next year.

Yeah, what's so important about national security?  The left is upset!  Let us treat their troops with appropriate drugs.  I have a few pharmaceutical suggestions myself, but there could be legal complications. 

Some Democratic senators were pushing for quick action, understanding that there are real citizens concerned about real security.

But Pelosi would have none of it, telling her colleagues that the Democratic base across the country is already upset about President Barack Obama’s decision to escalate U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan.

Can you believe that this is the way national-security policy is made?

The Obama administration, in fairness, favors extending the Patriot Act provisions.  But once again the left wing of the House goes its own way.  They're still mourning the American victory in the Cold War.

December 16, 2009   Permalink

 

AN ANNIVERSARY TO OBSERVE - AT 8:28 A.M. ET:  Today is the 65th anniversary of the start of the Battle of the Bulge, also known as the Ardennes Offensive.  On December 16th, 1944, Nazi Germany, only months away from defeat, launched a surprise attack on Allied troops on the western front, hoping to drive a wedge in our line and ultimately wreck the Allied advance into Germany.  The German attack, after bitter fighting, failed.

The Battle of the Bulge lasted a bit more than five weeks.  The United States lost 19,000 men.  We were a nation of about 138 million at the time.  Today the United States has a population of approximately 305 million.  Put in proportion to today's population, the Battle of the Bulge cost the lives of more than 40,000 American soldiers.  It was, for us, the costliest engagement of World War II.

I mention the casualty figures to emphasize what we endured in the Second World War.  Obviously, every life is precious.  To the family that receives a knock on the door from an officer bearing the worst news from Iraq or Afghanistan, there is no such thing as "low casualties."  But the next time you hear one of those whining anchors on CNN talking about our "war-weary" nation, think back to 1944, and the cost of just one five-week battle.  The nation at Christmas in 1944 had a right to be war-weary.  Unless we are part of a military family today, we have no such right.

December 16, 2009    Permalink

   

IRAN TESTS - AGAIN - AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  From The New York Times:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran on Wednesday test-fired an upgraded version of its most advanced missile, which is capable of hitting Israel and parts of Europe, in a new show of strength aimed at preventing any military strike against it amid the nuclear standoff with the West.

The test stoked tensions between Iran and the West, which is pressing Tehran to rein in its nuclear program. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said it showed the need for tougher U.N. sanctions on Iran...

...Wednesday's test was for the latest version of Iran's longest-range missile, the Sajjil-2, with a range of about 1,200 miles (2,000 kilometers). That range places Israel, Iran's sworn enemy, well within reach, as well as U.S. bases in the Gulf region and parts of southeastern Europe.

COMMENT:  We're impressed by the sheer number of stories about Iran that have appeared in the press in the last week.  President Obama's "deadline" for nuclear talks with Iran to show progress is two weeks away.  So much has been made of this deadline by the administration, especially Clinton and Gates, that any failure to act decisively in January will make the president look foolish and, once again, weak. 

Stand by.  Next month should be very interesting.

December 16,  2009   Permalink

 

 

 

TUESDAY,  DECEMBER 15,  2009

AND THEY'LL TAKE THEIR TEN VOTES WITH THEM - AT 7:48 P.M. ET;  The delusions of the left never cease to amaze.  Far more Americans identify themselves as conservatives than liberals, but the left believes it has vast power.  Consider this, from The Hill:

Democratic votes may stay home from the polls in retribution for Congress failing at health reform, a top liberal lawmaker said Tuesday.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), the co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said that members of the Democratic Party's base "aren't even going to go to the polls if they don't have a public option."

You know, these people never learn.  In 1968 a number of "progressives" stayed home to protest the nomination of Hubert H. Humphrey, a genuinely great liberal, and they helped elect their nemesis, Richard M. Nixon...and they didn't care.  Revenge is more important to the self-loving left than governing. 

Liberal activists have expressed outrage on Tuesday that the public option, as well as the Medicare buy-in, have been sacked by Democratic leaders in Congress in order to win over enough centrists' votes to pass a bill.

Yeah, in the minds of "liberal activists" it's better to have nothing than 80%.  That's why they're so effective at getting things done.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the other co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also sternly warned he would vote against the Senate proposal.

"The Senate has somehow managed to turn the House’s silk purse into a sow’s ear," he said. "If what the Senate is doing isn’t corrected in conference with the House, I will not support the bill. Since the Senate won’t use reconciliation, which only requires 51 votes, it doesn’t look promising for any real change.”

Well, maybe the liberals will actually be doing us a favor by killing the whole thing.  Then we gain, and they remain pure.  A win-win.

December 15, 2009    Permalink

 

BULLETIN:  HOUSE VOTES FOR QUIETNESS.  CIVILIZATION SAVED - AT 6:38 P.M. ET:  In an example of where priorities are in Washington, the House has taken dramatic action to save us all:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House on Tuesday voted to level off the abrupt spikes in volume felt by television viewers during commercial breaks.

The bill -- approved by a voice vote -- is aimed at stopping TV ads from playing noticeably louder than programs.

''It's very frustrating,'' said Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va. ''It's an annoying experience, and something really should be done about it.''

Irritated by loud commercials, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., drafted the measure after discovering it was a common complaint with the Federal Communications Commission.

Right now, the government doesn't have much say in the volume of TV ads. It's been getting grievances about commercial loudness for decades.

Well, I'll certainly sleep better knowing this Congress is protecting me.  And their eloquence just sends me away:

Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., addressed critics who have asked why Congress has to get involved in the matter.

''You can say, 'Well, that's fine. Just turn it off,''' Stearns said. ''But it's constantly an irritant when you have to do it. And we've got all the new bowl games coming up.''

That tops the Gettysburg Address.  Don't you agree?

Okay, okay, I'm being sarcastic.  I, too, wish the broadcasters wouldn't blast commercials.  But it does seem an odd thing to warrant priority action, with all Congress has to do.

December 15, 2009   Permalink 

 

HOUSE ACTION AGAINST IRAN - AT 6:31 P.M. ET:  The House, actually acting intelligently, passed major Iran sanctions legislation today:

WASHINGTON — The House voted Tuesday to impose new economic sanctions on Iran as lawmakers cast doubt on Iran's willingness to respond to diplomatic efforts to curtail its purported nuclear arms program.

The legislation, approved 412-12, would end access to U.S. markets for foreign companies selling refined petroleum products to Iran or helping that country develop its petroleum capacity. While Iran is a major crude oil producer, its lack of ability to produce enough gasoline and other refined petroleum products is a major economic vulnerability.

With no Senate action on the legislation expected this year, the House vote was for the time being mainly a warning that the United States is ready to act on its own if the Tehran government doesn't respond to current international efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

The reason for the lack of Senate action, according to news reports, is John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who's holding things up.  Surprise.

I'm always interested in who's on the losing end of these lopsided votes.  I'll try to get the names of the Iran 12, those who voted against sanctions.  The "no" bloc was led, naturally, by Dennis Kucinich, and also contained Ron Paul.  Paul tends to be lionized by some conservatives.  But on foreign policy he's pretty dismal, and more radical left than right. 

The first actual step toward stiffer sanctions will apparently be taken by the Obama administration in January, as it tries to line up support in the UN Security Council.  China and Russia, both members of the Council, are already signalling opposition to any sanctions that actually have a chance of working.

December 15, 2009   Permalink

 

GETTING RID OF JOE - AT 6:14 P.M. ET:  The diversity-crazy Democratic Party has difficulty with diversity within its own ranks.  The party's handling of Joe Lieberman, its 2000 vice presidential candidate, is Exhibit A.  From The Politico:

A House Democrat from Connecticut said Tuesday that Sen. Joe Lieberman should be recalled from office over his opposition to the Senate health care bill.

"No individual should hold health care hostage, including Joe Lieberman, and I'll say it flat out, I think he ought to be recalled," Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) told POLITICO.

Great respect for democracy.  Vote our way or else.  Unfortunately, Ms. DeLauro, a hard-left Democrat, forgot a minor item:

Connecticut has no recall law for state officials, and the Constitution does not authorize states to recall members of Congress since each house has the authority to police its own members. DeLauro acknowledged that she didn’t know “what the Connecticut process is because I never found myself in this position — but I think it is unconscionable that he would hold up health care.”

And why bother finding out before making the speech?  And then she comes out with this:

She said that millions of people die because they lack health insurance.

Yes, we find the bodies in the streets every morning.  In fact, people who need health care can get it through a variety of programs.  The system does need reform and improvement in many areas, but we don't just let people die.

At the same time, many people do not seek medical care, because of their own negligence or cultural attitudes.  That issue is too delicate for Washington to explore.

December 15, 2009   Permalink

 

WHAT IS IT WITH THESE CHURCHMEN? - AT 10:15 A.M. ET:  Britain seems to have a clergy problem.  Nile Gardiner, in London's Telegraph, reports on one particularly un-Godlike character:

The Telegraph’s Jonathan Wynne-Jones and Duncan Gardham have an explosive report on the appalling views of the Rt. Rev. Stephen Venner, recently commissioned by Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to serve as Bishop to the Forces. Here’s what Venner said:

“We’ve been too simplistic in our attitude towards the Taliban.”

“There’s a large number of things that the Taliban say and stand for which none of us in the west could approve, but simply to say therefore that everything they do is bad is not helping the situation because it’s not honest really.”

“The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other.”

That is coming from the man who will be bishop to Britain's armed forces. 

As Damian Thompson asked earlier, what would Venner have said about the Nazis? One can only imagine, and it’s not pretty.

During the Second World War, remarks like these about the enemy would have rightly been regarded as an act of treason...

...The Taliban are not an honourable foe deserving of admiration. They are vicious, Islamist thugs, evil terrorists who brutalise the Afghan people while promoting the cause of Osama bin Laden. Their savagery is similar to that of the Nazis and should be universally condemned.

Bishop Venner’s comments are a sickening disgrace, and he should withdraw them, with an unreserved apology to all who have lost loved ones at the murderous hands of the Taliban and their al-Qaeda cohorts.

I wish we'd see that kind of spine in some of our own mainstream media writers.  No such luck.

UPDATE:  Well, the bishop has indeed apologized, also reported in the Telegraph:

The new bishop to the armed forces has apologised over comments he made about how the Taliban could be admired for their “conviction to their faith”.

“I’m not trying to support the Taliban,” he told the BBC. “At the moment what they are doing is evil.”

He said he would be “deeply grieved” if anyone had taken offence and hoped he had not jeopardised his job.

COMMENT:  I guess his apology will be accepted.  Frankly, I'd rather see Nile Gardiner as bishop to the British forces. 

December 15, 2009   Permalink

 

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 9:38 A.M. ET:   From Rich Lowry, in the New York Post:

Harry Reid can rightly claim to be making history.

If he passes health-care re form, he'll depend on a series of historic "firsts." It'd be the first time Congress had passed a major new entitlement program without bipartisan support; it'd be the first time it passed such a program without popular support; and the first time it passed such a program without knowing or particularly caring what's in it.

Very well said, and true.

This isn't the behavior of a self-confident majority secure in the knowledge that history is on its side. In fact, it's panicked, weaselly and willfully careless. The historian Richard Hofstadter wrote of the "paranoid style" in American politics. Obama Democrats have perfected the "impatient style." Reid's latest exertions fit the pattern of a headlong rush to a slapdash social democracy, justified by whatever arguments happen to be at hand and effected by whatever means necessary.

Reid acts like a hunted man for good reason. The RealClearPolitics average has 53.5 percent opposed to the Democrats' health-care plan and 37.7 favoring it. A CNN poll last week found the public against it by nearly 2-1. The numbers have gotten worse as the Senate has debated the measure in all its varied splendor -- the tax hikes, the Medicare cuts, the abortion funding. Reid is like the tormented narrator of Poe's "The Pit and the Pendulum": With the clock's every tick, a vast blade promising doom swings nearer.

And...

If the health-care bill is necessary and wise, it will withstand a temporary defeat. Democrats could campaign on it around the country next year. They could rebuild public support, turning around the polls. They could enhance their majority in the House and the Senate, bringing more Democrats to Washington determined to pass it. That's how you usually pass historic legislation in a system naturally inclined to the status quo.

But Reid knows long-term persuasion isn't an option. As his approval rating sags below 40 percent back in Nevada, even he might not be returning to Washington after 2010. Every day, every hour matters in the now-or-never calculus of Democrats who already feel their moment slipping agonizingly away.

COMMENT:  It happens that I have a routine medical appointment today.  And I have found myself wondering whether I'll be able to see this same excellent doctor next year, and if I'll have any choice in health insurance.  At this stage in the debate, I shouldn't have to wonder.  But the deliberations in Congress are among the most secretive I've ever seen.  The American people, doctors and patients, are excluded from the room.

December 15, 2009   Permalink

 

IN DEFENSE OF PEOPLE - AT 9:18 A.M. ET:  Anne Applebaum, of the Washington Post, is as miffed as anyone at the kids' stuff in Copenhagen, especially the veddy, veddy chic and fashionable attacks on the human race and its excesses, often delivered by people with limos and private jets waiting outside.  Anne defends we mortals:

It's true that I'm not crazy about the Kyoto climate negotiation process, of which the Copenhagen summit is the latest stage. But I'm even more disturbed by the apocalyptic and the anti-human prejudices of the climate change movement, some of which do indeed filter down to children as young as 9.

Over the years there have been many radical statements of this latter creed. In the infamous words of a National Park Service ecologist, "We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. . . . Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." A former leader of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals once declared that "humans have grown like a cancer; we're the biggest blight on the face of the earth." But it is a mistake to think that this is the language of only a crazy fringe.

Look, for example, at the Optimum Population Trust, a mainstream organization whose patrons include the naturalist David Attenborough, the scientist Jane Goodall and professors at Cambridge and Stanford -- and that campaigns against, well, human beings. Calling for "fewer emitters, lower emissions," the group offers members the chance to offset the pollution that they generate, merely by existing, through the purchase of family-planning devices in poor countries.

The poor countries must love that.  Talk about imperialism...

The assumption behind this calculation is profoundly negative: that human beings are nothing more than machines for the production of carbon dioxide.

But it's such a wonderful thing to say at a Manhattan dinner party.

Anne to the rescue:

For while it's true that humans are often greedy, stupid and destructive, it's also true that we got to where we are at least partly thanks to human creativity, ingenuity and talent. Electricity is a miracle, an invention that has brought light and life to millions. Modern communication and transportation systems are no less extraordinary, helping to create economic growth in places where poverty and misery were the norm for centuries.

Well, at least someone finally said it. 

All of them depend on fossil fuels, but they don't have to: A profound change in the nature of human energy consumption is possible -- thanks to the entrepreneurship that created the Internet, the compassion that lies behind the advances in modern medicine and the scientific reasoning that sent men into space. As for nihilism and hatred of humankind, it teaches us nothing, except to give up. And we shouldn't be passing that on to our children either.

COMMENT:  And I've never seen a penguin cure an animal disease, either.  But don't get me wrong.  I love penguins.  Great creatures, and so well dressed.

The problem, of course, is that pseudo-intellectuals (not real intellectuals) have created that anti-human mindset.  These are the kind of people who would have, on their gravestones, their College Board scores.  You know, JOHN G. EGGHEAD, VERBAL 780, MATH 740 (but will retake). 

I expect to see that. 

December 15, 2009   Permalink

WE HAVE BEEN GORED, AGAIN - AT 8:20 A.M. ET:  As the grown-ups plan our missile defense (see story below), the children meet in Copenhagen.  Al Gore made his appearance, and immediately committed a major-league gaffe, adding to Climategate.  From The Times of London:

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

Not so fast, esteemed prophet.

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Wieslav Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

COMMENT:  Geez!  You'd think by now that the global-warming priesthood would try to get things right, or at least avoid mistakes like this.  But the arrogance just overflows. Good for Dr. Maslowski, in standing up to the Goracle.  Now let's reexamine the entire subject of global warming and nail down the facts before we bankrupt the West.

Oh, by the way, you'll notice the word "poleaxed" in the story.  I didn't know what it meant either, and so I went to a dictionary.  For those young readers educated in American schools, that's a book that lists a lot of words, the way the iPod lists songs, and tells you their meaning.  Poleaxed means to be knocked down, hit or shocked, as if with a poleax, which is a form of battle-ax. 

We don't do enough on language here, and I'm just easing my guilt.

December 15, 2009   Permalink 

 

NATIONAL DEFENSE STUNNER - AT 8:03 A.M. ET:  A wake-up call to those who haven't taken the Iranian threat seriously.  Apparently, the Pentagon is taking it very seriously:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will test its core missile defenses for the first time in January against a simulated long-range Iranian attack, a top Pentagon official said on Monday, amid tensions with Tehran.

That's an Iranian attack on the United States.  Everybody awake?

Speaking at the Reuters Aerospace and Defense Summit in Washington, Army Lieutenant General Patrick O'Reilly, the head of the Missile Defense Agency, said the roughly $150 million test was a departure from the more standard scenario of a North Korean attack.

That's serious money for a test.  It' a far cry from that disgraceful 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, assuring us that Iran had stopped developing nuclear weapons in 2003. 

It also would be more difficult testing the U.S. Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system against a missile that would be faster and more direct as it races toward the United States than a simulated strike from North Korea.

Of course, what we must also worry about is a shorter-range missile launched from a freighter a few hundred miles off Baltimore.

"Previously, we have been testing the GMD system against a North Korean-type scenario," O'Reilly said.

"This next test ... is more of a head-on shot like you would use defending against an Iranian shot into the United States. So that's the first time that we're now testing in a different scenario."

The fact that Iran was mentioned by name is diplomatically significant.  A recent series of statements by high American officials, including secretaries Clinton and Gates, have been increasingly, and appropriately, threatening toward Iran.

December 15,  2009   Permalink