Gingrich in 2012?

Okay, following up on my post from last night, "Newt Gingrich in the O.C.!," unlike many other politicians I've met, Newt Gingrich seemed like a cold, self-superior political actor. There was no sense of inclination toward glad-handing. In contrast, videos of Sarah Palin at her book signings show a potential candidate eager to engage her followers and supporters. Gingrich gave a good talk, and had I just left after the lecture I might have a different opinion of him. When he walked into the reception room for the signing, there was a punfunctory feel and a forced-smile atmosphere to the event. I can't remember feeling that I'm getting a privilege to meet someone who might very well be asking for my support. Call me selfish, but I don't necessarily view Gingrich as a model of personal integrity and leadership. He's an idea man, most of all. Super smart, he provided the GOP the punch for its comeback in the 1990s. But personally, he doesn't seem that much different than a lot of other run-of-the-mill partisan hacks. He's been under ethical clouds, and his fidelity to matrimonial sanctity leaves something to be desired. Nevetheless, he's a huge player on the right, and time tends to smooth the rough edges of political notoriety.

In any case, the editorial board at the Orange Count Register met with Gingrich, and the paper's got the results published this morning. See, "Gingrich Lays Out Terms for 2012 Run":

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday that he would need the support of a broad coalition of Republicans, Democrats and independents before he would consider a 2012 presidential bid.

Speaking to the Register's editorial board, Gingrich spoke of building a “tripartisan movement.”

While many core Democrats view him antagonistically, his message of government reform and lower taxes are similar to views expressed by Republicans, Tea Party followers, frustrated independents and Reagan Democrats.

“I spend time every day thinking about how to build that,” he said.

Gingrich has given no indication that he is pursuing a presidential bid, but he has not ruled it out.

Gingrich came for meetings throughout the area. Also on Thursday, his American Solutions group met with small-business owners at the Irvine Hilton. On Saturday at the St. Regis resort in Dana Point, he's speaking at the annual summit meeting of Legatus, a Catholic organization for business and civic leaders.

Gingrich said that next February, he and his team would gauge the prospects of a 2012 presidential run. He said he would have to feel a “citizen obligation.”

“Do I have a responsibility that I can't walk away from?” he asked.

Gingrich was in town to tout his American Solutions organization and its “Jobs First” proposal.

He described the country's economic malaise as being perpetuated by a “secular socialist machine that is fundamentally trying to change this country.” The next several election cycles will be critical to determining the future of the country, he said.

“We're either going to decide to be a secular socialist system or we're going to throw the rascals out.”

He blamed the movement on the influence that public unions, trial lawyers and liberal activists have over the government, and he took several shots at President Barack Obama.

“The president has lots of words, almost none of which has meaning,” he said. “He says we can't afford to spend more while he's increasing spending. … He says he's for jobs, except that he wants to tax everybody who raises money.”

Gingrich outlined five tax changes he said will spur the economy and job creation:

Give a two-year, 50 percent reduction of Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes paid by both employers and workers. He said the difference could be made up by unspent TARP and stimulus money.

Allow small businesses to deduct 100 percent of new equipment purchases.

Abolish taxes on capital gains.

Reduce the business tax rate to 12.5 percent.

Abolish the estate tax.

More details from Jan Norman, "Newt Gingrich Has Small-Biz Jobs Proposal," and Peggy Lowe, "Jobless Are the New Soccer Moms."

See also, "Newt Gingrich in the O.C.!"

VIDEO HAT TIP: American Solutions, "Platform of the American People."

Newt Gingrich in the O.C.!

Okay, got home a little after 9:00pm from the Newt Gingrich lecture at the Irvine Hilton. After I found a seat (reserved up front), I took this shot of the crowd while standing at the podium at the stage. The event is still filling up here:

As I was taking the picture, I saw a commotion at the back of the ballroom. I made my way back there to see what was happening. Newt Gingrich was preparing for his interview on Hannity:

Back up front, I'm photographed here with Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle. He's a true leader in the state's conservative movement, and was Speaker of the California State Assembly in 1996:

Here's Mayor Pringle introducing Speaker Gingrich:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich greets the crowd. And from the American Solutions website: "LIVE BLOG: Real Jobs Summit in Irvine, CA:

Beginning his talk:

You can see how packed it was in the ballroom during the lecture. Audience members were able to comment and ask questions:

Speaker Gingrich responding to questions:

I'm not particularly thrilled by Speaker Gingrich. He gave a very good speech, naturally, and he was especially strong in his views that enemy combatants should not be getting Miranda rights, etc. But last October/November I was really bothered by Gingrich's endorsement of RINO Dede Scozzafava. And even during his address tonight he came off a little too moderate. I'm with Michelle Malkin on this, for example: "Dear Newt Gingrich: Meet Ronald Reagan." Doug Hoffman ran within a couple of points of Democrat Bill Owens, NY-23's winner, on election night November 3rd. Had Speaker Gingrich endorsed Hoffman, and perhaps campaigned for him in New York, he could have provided the lift for the conservative Republican to take the seat. I don't really understand Gingrich's thinking on that one.

I bought a book anyway. Gingrich did a signing and I thought I might as well go for it rather than regret it later. I studied Gingrich's House leadership in some detail in graduate school, so better to be open-minded as far as historical significance goes. And honestly, I'm pleased so far with the book, Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation's History.

And here's the obligatory picture. This was a high-speed production, as you can see. Speaker Gingrich was signing the next person's book while posing for a photo with me:

Anyway, I'm glad I attended, even if Speaker Gingrich was too businesslike and impersonal at this stage of the evening. There were roughly 75 people or so at the signing. Michelle Malkin had more people waiting in line when I met her, and she took the time to smile, shake hands, and stand for photos with those in attendence at her event.

All in all, though, a worthwhile evening.

UPDATED!! - Sean Hannity Newt Gingrich in the O.C.!

UPDATE: I just came from the event at the Irvine Hilton. Actually, Hannity interviewed Speaker Newt Gingrich via satellite (which I just missed right now coming home) on the 9:00pm encore broadcast. I'll look for a video of that tomorrow. Meanwhile, I'll be posting pictures from the lecture in a new blog entry. I'll update this post when that's published.

*****

UPDATE II: Here's the report, "Newt Gingrich in the O.C.!"

*****

I just got word this afternoon that Sean Hannity will do his show tonight live from the Irvine Hilton. Hannity's Twitter page is here. And Melinda Stone's tweet has the details:

Here's the American Solutions announcement, "Real Jobs Summit in Irvine, California":

There's a chance I'll be part of the live audience, so I'm planning on arriving to the event at 5:00pm. Check back later here tonight for a report!

RELATED: I actually don't care much for Newt Gingrich, so this is interesting: From CNN, "Club for Growth Targets Gingrich" (via Memeorandum).

Here We Are Now, Entertain Us...

Hey, maybe rock blogging is catching on among us conservatives!

From Sean Hackbarth, "Why Nirvana’s Nevermind Is Overrated":

A Twitter chat tonight with @LizMair, @ToddThurman, @CalebHowe, and others involved the supposed greatness of Nirvana. There’s no doubt they altered popular music for the better when Nevermind was unleased in 1991. But they’re also the most overrated band in modern times. Critics and supposed smart people too often speak of Nirvana in the same breath as The Beatles and Led Zeppelin. And it’s all pretty much based on Nevermind–or to be more exact “Smells Like Teen Spirit.”

More at the link.

Actually, I was never much into Nirvana personally. "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is a wicked song, but I was especially turned off by Kurt Cobain's death, which seemed to me a copy-cat suicide seeking the same kind of rock immortality as Jimi Hendrix or Janis Joplin. All a waste, and especially for someone like Cobain, who clearly had a long future in the music world.

Lyrics here. And Theo Spark's "Bedtime Totty ..."

NBC Loves Them Some Fried Chicken and Collard Greens!

Actually, this wouldn't bother me, since I SHO' DO LOVE ME SOME COLLARD GREENS! Hmm, hmm, mammy!

But considering the stereotypical nature of this AND the hypersensitivities of today's black folk, well, perhaps this isn't the best idea:

Mediaite has the story, "NBC Cafeteria Celebrates Black History Month With Fried Chicken Special." And from the links there, "Cook Defends Fried Chicken Choice for Black History Month Menu":

See also, Michelle Malkin, "MLK, Black History Month, and Cuisine Correctness" (via Memeorandum).

Social Security Meltdown is Here

It's been almost a couple of years now, but when I challenged Bruce Webb sometime back on his endless claims of "solvency" for Social Security, the guy practically blew a gasket. And now he's got some totally unintelligible post up today on the public debt ceilings and entitlement reform, although this quote gives you an idea of his agenda:

As long as the Social Security Trust Funds are throwing off enough interest dollars to cover the gap between Income excluding Interest and Cost there is absolutely no reason why workers should simply sacrifice their own interests here.

Translated: There's no reason for reforming the system to reduce liabiliaties or shift to marketization. But for Bruce Webb, frankly, if you keep spinning out enough opaque accounting gimmicks, there'll never be any reason to consider actually reforming a system that's essentially bankrupt. And Bruce will come back screaming in your face that there's now way you can truly understand these issues unless you've read the "primary documents" like he has!

Actually, it's not that complicated. In fact, John Hawkins has the goods: "It Has Begun: The Big Social Security Meltdown":

For years, conservatives have been saying that we need to get a handle on Social Security. Even George Bush, who wasn't a fiscal conservative, understood the risks and he tried desperately to reform the program -- but, not no avail.

Well now, a few years earlier than most people predicted, the program is going into the red:

A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending on benefits.

...No one has officially announced that Social Security will be cash-negative this year. But you can figure it out for yourself, as I did, by comparing two numbers in the recent federal budget update that the nonpartisan CBO issued last week.

The first number is $120 billion, the interest that Social Security will earn on its trust fund in fiscal 2010 (see page 74 of the CBO report). The second is $92 billion, the overall Social Security surplus for fiscal 2010 (see page 116).

This means that without the interest income, Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

Why disregard the interest? Because as people like me have said repeatedly over the years, the interest, which consists of Treasury IOUs that the Social Security trust fund gets on its holdings of government securities, doesn't provide Social Security with any cash that it can use to pay its bills. The interest is merely an accounting entry with no economic significance.

...Even though an economic recovery might produce some small, fleeting cash surpluses, Social Security's days of being flush are over.

To be sure -- three of the most dangerous words in journalism -- the current Social Security cash deficits aren't all that big, given that Social Security is a $700 billion program this year, and that the government expects to borrow about $1.5 trillion in fiscal 2010 to cover its other obligations, about the same as it borrowed in fiscal 2009.

But this year's Social Security cash shortfall is a watershed event. Until this year, Social Security was a problem for the future. Now it's a problem for the present.

For a long, long time in this country, we've sacrificed the "future" for the "now." The problem with doing that is that eventually, the future arrives and you have to deal with it. Say hello to the future of Social Security, folks, because it's here a little early.

There's more at the link. And John's link goes to CNN, "Next in Line for a Bailout: Social Security."

But no doubt Bruce Webb's got everything under control!

What Tea Party Fracture?

Mainstream media outlets have sought to destroy the tea party movement from the beginning. It's just lately that a few on the left have admitted that America's conservative populists are having a dramatic effect on national poltics. But as Sarah Palin prepares to deliver the keynote address at the Nashville convention, there's more media attempts at marginalization. Today we have yet another recycled hit piece at CNN, "Fractures Emerge as Tea Party Convenes." I've responded to the left's mendacity on this already, but readers might benefit from Just-a-Grunt's discussion at Jammie's Place, "MSM Finally Acknowledges Existence of the Tea Parties":

Much has been made lately about a group of Tea Partiers holding a convention in Nashville that comes with, for many of those who support the effort, a steep price tag. My reaction has always been, so what? If you want to pay the money to attend more power to you. I have yet to figure out why this is such a big deal. It would seem the narrative being pushed in the media is that because this movement is supposed to be all about the common man everything they do must come with a Wal-Mart style price tag.

So while the Democrats are holding fundraisers in Hawaii, and their defeated candidates can go to Washington, DC to accept donations from big unions and others are holding campaign fundraisers at posh resorts and venues, the press thinks it is despicable for the Tea Party folks to holding a event that are charging for.

I think maybe it has more to do with Sarah Palin being the keynote speaker and the fear she embodies in the liberals and they are afraid of what might happen if the movement, which is really a bunch of local organizations, should get organized under one banner.

For the record, I don't think the Tea Party should be a national organization. It works best when it remains focused on the local level and holds local politicians accountable more then when they take on trying to present a solid, one size fits all, type personality.

No, trying to reign in the Tea Partiers is like herding a bunch of cats. It is an endeavor best not entered into.

The good news is that an organization that couldn't get an honorable mention on the nightly newscast last year is now having their every move scrutinized. Like they say in Hollywood, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

More at Memeorandum.

Image Credit: "Orange County Tax Day Tea Party."

Jon Stewart on the 'O'Reilly Factor'

Freedom's Lighthouse provides the videos. And here's this from the Los Angeles Times, "Comedian Jon Stewart Takes the Hot Seat with Bill O'Reilly":

Jon Stewart showed up alone for his showdown Wednesday afternoon with Bill O'Reilly.

"Stewart, S-T-E-W-A-R-T," he told the security guard in the lobby of Fox News' midtown Manhattan headquarters. "I'm here to get crushed by O'Reilly."

In fact, what unfolded over the next 40 minutes was a vigorous, policy-laden debate between two of television's most popular figures who hail from increasingly polarized political worlds. Their discussion careened between talk of tort reform, global warming and the trials of the 9/11 terrorists.

But most of all, Stewart used his second appearance ever on "The O'Reilly Factor" to levy a robust critique of Fox News and its coverage of President Obama.

"Here's what Fox has done, through their cyclonic perpetual emotional machine that is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week: They have taken reasonable concerns about this president and this economy and turned it into full-fledged panic attack about the next coming of Chairman Mao," the comedian told his host.

"I think some people do that, but most people don't," O'Reilly responded, calling it "the narrative of a couple of guys."

Media criticism is nothing new for Stewart, who engages in it every night on "The Daily Show," gleefully splicing together news footage in bracing send-ups of media outlets, particularly Fox News. His mockery of CNN's political talk show "Crossfire" helped persuade executives to cancel that program. And last year he jousted fiercely with CNBC host Jim Cramer, accusing him of overstating the health of the stock market.

But when Stewart lodged his case against Fox News on the network's own air, directly to its top-rated host, it made for a rare and remarkable television exchange.

More at the link, as well as a Fox News video of the broadcast. (Via Memeorandum.)

Karen Alloy's Bouncing Babies Beat Carly Fiorina's Cyborg Sheep Any Day!

Wouldn't you prefer to watch Karen Alloy hanging with a bouncing baby than a Carly Fiorina attack ad featuring psychedelic cyborg attack sheep? Yep, I thought so:

But hey, Carly gets technical points for FCINO, no?

Flex Days at LBCC

My college had "Flex Days" yesterday. Billed as faculty professional development, it was pretty traditional department meetings this time (dealing with the latest classroom challenges and program developments, etc.). And for my colleagues in History and Political Science, this was the first time we've met together to discuss our move into the new building.

My department chairman expressed his sense of finally working in a truly professional workplace, one designed for what we do specifically -- he said it really felt like being at a college. I've felt that way too, especially when I get to look out over Carson Street everyday to view the college green and the main campus building.

But our college is facing a lot of challenges, and the information discussed here is in the public realm. Most important of these is the budget crisis that's hitting the community colleges hard. There are discussions of LBCC's budget picture here, here, and here. Not reported is the college trustees' contract proposal for a 4.615 percent salary reduction across the board. We had a long discussion on this during the department meeting. Not only will contract negotiations be pretty intense (with the possiblity of some kind of union job action), but it's going to be a big year in district board elections as well. (Our college's executive administration is bloated and generously compensated, so while I have a problem with public unions, etc., it's hard to even sustain talk of a salary rollback for faculty when administrative growth -- and growth in executive compensation relative to faculty -- has been dramatic.

The second challenge clearly was on the issue of classroom management, and especially technology in the classroom. I've always struggled a bit with our student demographic in fostering a learning environment really conducive to academic excellence. And to this day, I'm still amazed at the absence of a culture of learning among young people today. Now though, things have reached a critical mass. Whereas in earlier years I often felt as a lonely voice in the wilderness on standards of classroom decorum, now I'm hearing all kinds of stories. There's been a noticeable change over the last year, really, and it coincides perfectly with the invasion of cellular technology in the classroom. I recall the turning point being about 2003 or so, when most everyone had a phone and many students were distracted. But in the 6 or 7 years since, it seems that the prohibitive norms limiting student use during class have completely broken down. Perhaps its an addiction for a lot of kids, but texting is out of control, and in addition to phones, there are all kinds of music/MP3 devices being deployed, as well as laptops. The progressive members of the department, and one in particular who've I've discussed here previously, could not give a satisfactory response to the question of managing those students who completely tune out teaching in favor of surfing the web, checking Facebook, and playing cumputerized poker. These students are often faring the worst academically, but progressives want a free-flowing classroom driven by the much-idolized spontaneous "teachable moment." So what if a couple of students use the technology to blow off participation and learning? At least they've been empowered with the right to fail!

Anyway, I've mentioned earlier that I did not distribute the syllabus on the first day of classes. Instead I used that time to set the tone for the semester. It's worked fairly well so far, but during last week's exams too many students failed to either get to class on time for the exams or to have brought the necessary test-taking materials with them. Things that seem so basic and logical to the well-organized individual are generally foreign to so many students today, and not all of them young kids fresh out of high school. I'll be making some more adjustments to classroom procedures as the semester develops.

Anyway, I feel good that I'm not leaving anything to chance. Last semester was something of a disaster in a couple of my classrooms, in terms of keeping kids on task. I've found a good niche this year, and one of students today even asked me where I bought my Doc Martens!

It's all about finding that happy medium, yo!

Fiorina Struggles to Attract Social Conservatives

From the Los Angeles Times, "Fiorina, Targeting Boxer, is Still Cultivating Her Base":

As Senate candidate Carly Fiorina spoke to a standing-room-only meeting of local Republicans here, she hit familiar points -- her rise to become leader of Hewlett-Packard, her "common sense" approach to fixing the nation's economy and her pledge to give incumbent Barbara Boxer the fight of her life.

Amid all the fiscal talk, Fiorina dropped in a line about her conservative social beliefs.

"Barbara Boxer has never faced a candidate like me. . . . I will not permit her, for example, just to assume that all the women of California will vote for her," Fiorina told hundreds of people crowded in a hotel ballroom. "I say this as a proud pro-life conservative who believes marriage is between a man and a woman."

The fact that Fiorina felt compelled to detail her views on abortion and same-sex marriage underscores one of her greatest challenges as she seeks the Republican nomination: The party's most faithful voters are not convinced she is one of them.

Part of the reason is that, unlike her primary opponents, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore of Irvine and former U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell, Fiorina is an unknown political quantity. She has never sought election to public office before now, so she doesn't have a paper trail of legislation, statements and votes.

More than that, Fiorina's own words threaten to undermine her efforts to forge an image in the Senate race, which is getting national attention.

Her prepared speeches and written statements on taxes, federal spending and the deficit are consistently conservative. But when asked about nonfiscal issues, she sometimes veers into more moderate territory.

She said last week that she supported President Obama's effort to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," the policy excluding openly gay individuals from military service.

The week before that, when asked for an assessment of the president's first year in office, she said that although she disagreed with him on the economy and the decision to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, "I agree with many of the things he's done. . . . I think that he is doing everything he can to keep the nation safe and I applaud him for that."

That same week, a recording emerged of Fiorina praising the Rev. Jesse Jackson and saying that the nation will not be a "truly representative democracy" until women make up half or more of elected officials. Conservative pundits pounced, and people are still angry.

Fiorina said she stands by her statements. Although she disagrees politically with Jackson, she said, she applauds his efforts to highlight opportunities in Silicon Valley for minorities and the poor. On the matter of female politicians, she disputed suggestions that she was calling for quotas but said she believes that a true meritocracy would logically lead to more women in politics, business and other fields.

"We're better off as an industry and a nation if everybody gets to play," she said.

Fiorina said she finds the focus on such remarks "bizarre" and blamed DeVore's underdog campaign for their dissemination.

"His campaign strategy seems to be to misrepresent me," she said.

The article notes that these vulnerabilities could take a toll on Fiorina's campaign, and I hope so. See, "Carly Fiorina: The Next Dede Scozzafava?" Also, "McCain-Backed GOP Senate Candidate Carly Fiorina Hearts Jesse Jackson — and Radical Gender Politics."

Best Picture Nominations

From the Los Angeles Times, "Oscar Nominations That Are Ror the People":

They are precisely the kinds of movies hardly ever nominated for the best-picture Oscar -- a tear-jerker sports film, a space-alien thriller and an animated feature with a flying house and talking dogs -- but the populist pleasures "The Blind Side," "District 9" and "Up" all made the final cut for the top Academy Award.

Concerned that a steady stream of challenging, often little-seen art movies were dominating the Oscars and deflating TV ratings, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences doubled this year's best-picture race to 10 contestants, and the results Tuesday were exactly as intended: the inclusion of movies that have sold a boatload of tickets.

The nominations for the 82nd annual Academy Awards were led by the presumptive best-picture favorites -- "Avatar" and "The Hurt Locker," which each scored in nine categories. The two movies represent opposite extremes of audience recognition, as "Avatar" has generated almost 50 times more domestic revenue than "The Hurt Locker."

But to the delight of the March 7 ceremony's producers, four movies besides "Avatar" that have grossed more than $100 million made the best-picture competition: "Up" ($293 million), "The Blind Side" ($237.9 million), " Inglourious Basterds" ($120.5 million) and "District 9" ($115.6 million).

When last year's statuettes were presented, only one of the five best-picture finalists -- "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" -- had grossed more than $100 million.

"The fact that 'The Blind Side' made it in made me happier than anything," said Sandra Bullock, who also was nominated for lead actress. "The greatest thing the academy could have done is to make it 10 movies."

RTWT at the link.

Also, "The Cheat Sheet: Academy Awards."

I've seen two of the ten films nominated: "Hurt Locker" and "Precious." I wrote previously on "Precious," ("Seeing. Feeling. 'Precious'"). But for some reason I skipped a review of "Hurt Locker." I'll try to correct that later ...

Chuck DeVore Valentine's Day Reception

Via MAINFO, "Meet Chuck DeVore in Mission Viejo, CA, Feb 14:

Against Gays in the Military

I wrote about gays in the military last May. See, "Obama's Stunning Failure on Gays in the Military." I don't write about it often, but I oppose "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Some of my opinions have been influenced by academic research, especially, Aaron Belkin's, "A Modest Proposal: Privacy as a Flawed Rationale for the Exclusion of Gays and Lesbians from the U.S. Military." Also interesting has been some of the milblog arguments against the ban on open service. I'm also not convinced current policy has been effective. That said, Mackubin Thomas Owens makes the case against open integration at today's Wall Street Journal. See, "The Case Against Gays in the Military" (via Memeorandum):

Winning the nation's wars is the military's functional imperative. Indeed, it is the only reason for a liberal society to maintain a military organization. War is terror. War is confusion. War is characterized by chance, uncertainty and friction. The military's ethos constitutes an evolutionary response to these factors—an attempt to minimize their impact.

Accordingly, the military stresses such martial virtues as courage, both physical and moral, a sense of honor and duty, discipline, a professional code of conduct, and loyalty. It places a premium on such factors as unit cohesion and morale. The glue of the military ethos is what the Greeks called philia—friendship, comradeship or brotherly love. Philia, the bond among disparate individuals who have nothing in common but facing death and misery together, is the source of the unit cohesion that most research has shown to be critical to battlefield success.

Philia depends on fairness and the absence of favoritism. Favoritism and double standards are deadly to philia and its associated phenomena—cohesion, morale and discipline—are absolutely critical to the success of a military organization.

The presence of open homosexuals in the close confines of ships or military units opens the possibility that eros—which unlike philia is sexual, and therefore individual and exclusive—will be unleashed into the environment. Eros manifests itself as sexual competition, protectiveness and favoritism, all of which undermine the nonsexual bonding essential to unit cohesion, good order, discipline and morale.

See also, the Los Angeles Times, "Joint Chiefs Chair Says Gays and Lesbians Should Serve Openly in the Military."

P.S. I hate to say this, but I'm finding myself on the same side of this issue as the demonic Attackerman, God help me (although he doesn't help his case by mocking Mackubin Thomas Owens).

Obama Deficits Could Weaken American Power

Niall Ferguson, last November, published a pessimistic piece on the weakening economic foundations of U.S. power, "An Empire at Risk." I'm an optimist, of course, and I've commented here recently on my confidence that the next U.S. economic expansion will improve the nation's long-term prospects dramatically (balance of payments, chronic budget deficits, and the federal debt overhang). But this is a pretty staggering analysis:

The deficit for the fiscal year 2009 came in at more than $1.4 trillion—about 11.2 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). That's a bigger deficit than any seen in the past 60 years—only slightly larger in relative terms than the deficit in 1942. We are, it seems, having the fiscal policy of a world war, without the war. Yes, I know, the United States is at war in Afghanistan and still has a significant contingent of troops in Iraq. But these are trivial conflicts compared with the world wars, and their contribution to the gathering fiscal storm has in fact been quite modest (little more than 1.8 percent of GDP, even if you accept the estimated cumulative cost of $3.2 trillion published by Columbia economist Joseph Stiglitz in February 2008).

And that $1.4 trillion is just for starters. According to the CBO's most recent projections, the federal deficit will decline from 11.2 percent of GDP this year to 9.6 percent in 2010, 6.1 percent in 2011, and 3.7 percent in 2012. After that it will stay above 3 percent for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, in dollar terms, the total debt held by the public (excluding government agencies, but including foreigners) rises from $5.8 trillion in 2008 to $14.3 trillion in 2019—from 41 percent of GDP to 68 percent.

In other words, there is no end in sight to the borrowing binge. Unless entitlements are cut or taxes are raised, there will never be another balanced budget. Let's assume I live another 30 years and follow my grandfathers to the grave at about 75. By 2039, when I shuffle off this mortal coil, the federal debt held by the public will have reached 91 percent of GDP, according to the CBO's extended baseline projections. Nothing to worry about, retort -deficit-loving economists like Paul Krugman. In 1945, the figure was 113 percent.

There's more at the link.

And now here comes this from the New York Times, "Deficits May Alter U.S. Politics and Global Power" (with emphasis added):

In a federal budget filled with mind-boggling statistics, two numbers stand out as particularly stunning, for the way they may change American politics and American power.

The first is the projected deficit in the coming year, nearly 11 percent of the country’s entire economic output. That is not unprecedented: During the Civil War, World War I and World War II, the United States ran soaring deficits, but usually with the expectation that they would come back down once peace was restored and war spending abated.

But the second number, buried deeper in the budget’s projections, is the one that really commands attention: By President Obama’s own optimistic projections, American deficits will not return to what are widely considered sustainable levels over the next 10 years. In fact, in 2019 and 2020 — years after Mr. Obama has left the political scene, even if he serves two terms — they start rising again sharply, to more than 5 percent of gross domestic product. His budget draws a picture of a nation that like many American homeowners simply cannot get above water.

For Mr. Obama and his successors, the effect of those projections is clear: Unless miraculous growth, or miraculous political compromises, creates some unforeseen change over the next decade, there is virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors. Beyond that lies the possibility that the United States could begin to suffer the same disease that has afflicted Japan over the past decade. As debt grew more rapidly than income, that country’s influence around the world eroded.

The United States can't easily be compared to Japan, but certainly there's danger in the long-term implications of monetizing the debt (a most logical response), which would devalue our currency and cause an increase in interest rates around the world, which would in turn cause U.S. borrowing costs to rise. It's unsustainable over the duration, but again, I'm not too worried, given appropriate and timely adjustments. The most important thing would be to get the disastrous Democrats out of power and return to a high-growth strategy of targeted tax breaks to expand the economy, along with a more cautious monetary policy to keep domestic inflation in check. Had the Fed not artificially stimulated the economy past the immediate period of post-September 11 crisis, it's unlikely the housing boom would have gone on as long as it did (holding the Democrats' Fannie/Freddie boondoggle constant), and the massive windfalls in tax receipts following the Bush tax cuts in 2003 would have been more sure to have kept budgetary pressures under control.

And note that that's the NEW YORK TIMES taking the Obama administration to task. This is not good for the demonic (O)CT(O)PUS' pseudo-analysis.

Why is Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams Having Heart Surgery in the U.S.?

Isn't the answer obvious? And of course, this should be a huge story in the press, but so far it's mostly Canadian outlets covering it. But see Pirate's Cove, "Hey, Mr. Canadian Premier, Where Do You Go For Heart Surgery? USA, USA!" And also, the National Post, "N.L. Premier Williams Set to Have Heart Surgery in U.S" (via Memeorandum):

Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams will undergo heart surgery later this week in the United States.

Deputy premier Kathy Dunderdale confirmed the treatment at a news conference Tuesday, but would not reveal the location of the operation or how it would be paid for.

"He has gone to a renowned expert in the procedure that he needs to have done," said Ms. Dunderdale, who will become acting premier while Mr. Williams is away for three to 12 weeks.

"In consultation with his own doctors, he's decided to go that route."

Mr. Williams' decision to leave Canada for the surgery has raised eyebrows over his apparent shunning of Canada's health-care system.

"It was never an option offered to him to have this procedure done in this province," said Ms. Dunderdale, refusing to answer whether the procedure could be done elsewhere in Canada.

Mr. Williams, 59, has said nothing of his health in the media.

"The premier has made a commitment that once he's through this procedure and he's well enough, he's going to talk about the whole process and share as much detail with you as he's comfortable to do at that time," she said.

Reports indicate that Williams could have surgery elsewhere in Canada, and without a wait time. But clearly, the fact that he's choosing to fly to the U.S. indicates just that: choice. I'll have to check with some Canadian blogging buddies, but it's a huge extra expense of time, money, and worry for someone in Newfoundland to be required to travel to another province to have such surgery done. The premier's decision to travel to the U.S. is a massive repudiation of the Canadian system. We do have some Canadians blogging this already: See Ezra Levant, "Danny Williams Flies to U.S. Health Clinics, Just Like Jean Chretien Did," and Kate at Small Dead Animals gets right to the point: "It should be a Criminal Code offence for any sitting member of parliament or provincial MLA to leave Canada for medical treatment." (Hat Tip: Ed Morrissey.)

Photo Credit: CTV Calgary. The Newfoundland provincial government page is here.

What's a College Degree Really Worth?

I've been in department meetings all morning, and I've still got to record those Scantrons from yesterday. So, I'll have more posting a little later. Meanwhile, here's this from the Wall Street Journal, "What's a Degree Really Worth?":

A college education may not be worth as much as you think.

For years, higher education was touted as a safe path to professional and financial success. Easy money, in the form of student loans, flowed to help parents and students finance degrees, with the implication that in the long run, a bachelor's degree was a good bet. Graduates, it has long been argued, would be able to build solid careers that would earn them far more than their high-school educated counterparts.

The numbers appeared to back it up. In recent years, the nonprofit College Board touted the difference in lifetime earnings of college grads over high-school graduates at $800,000, a widely circulated figure. Other estimates topped $1 million.

But now, as tuition continues to skyrocket and many seeking to change careers are heading back to school, some researchers are questioning the methodology behind the high projections.

Most researchers agree that college graduates, even in rough economies, generally fare better than individuals with only high-school diplomas. But just how much better is where the math gets fuzzy.

The problem stems from the common source of the estimates, a 2002 Census Bureau report titled "The Big Payoff." The report said the average high-school graduate earns $25,900 a year, and the average college graduate earns $45,400, based on 1999 data. The difference between the two figures is $19,500; multiply it by 40 years, as the Census Bureau did, and the result is $780,000.

"The idea was not to produce a definitive 'This is what you'll earn' number, but to try and give some measure of the relative value of education attainments," says Eric Newburger, a lead researcher at the Census and the paper's co-author. "It's not a statement about the future, it's a statement about today."

Mark Schneider, a vice president of the American Institutes for Research, a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, calls it "a million-dollar misunderstanding."

One problem he sees with the estimates: They don't take into account deductions from income taxes or breaks in employment. Nor do they factor in debt, particularly student debt loads, which have ballooned for both public and private colleges in recent years. In addition, the income data used for the Census estimates is from 1999, when total expenses for tuition and fees at the average four-year private college were $15,518 per year. For the 2009-10 school year, that number has risen to $26,273, and it continues to increase at a rate higher than inflation.

Dr. Schneider estimated the actual lifetime-earnings advantage for college graduates is a mere $279,893 in a report he wrote last year. He included tuition payments and discounted earning streams, putting them into present value. He also used actual salary data for graduates 10 years after they completed their degrees to measure incomes. Even among graduates of top-tier institutions, the earnings came in well below the million-dollar mark, he says.

And just like any investment, there are risks—such as graduating into a deep economic downturn. That's what happened to Kelly Dunleavy, who graduated in 2007 from the University of California, Berkeley, with $60,000 in loans. She now works as a reporter for a small newspaper in the Bay Area and earns $34,000 a year. Her father is currently paying her $700 monthly loan payments. "It's harder than what I think I expected it to be," she says.

"Averages don't tell the whole story," says Lauren Asher, president of the Institute for College Access & Success, a nonprofit group based in Berkeley, Calif. She points out that incomes vary widely, especially based on majors. "The truth is that no one can predict for you exactly what you're gong to earn," she says.

More at the link. (Via Memeorandum.) I'm with the folks at CATO on this one. See, "The College Earnings Premium — Why It’s Meaningless." Beyond variations in majors and the distribution of individual attributes (motivation, intelligence, skills), even if we broke down the gains from college in pure cost/benefit terms, there's too many intangibles that come from entering into a life of the mind. Or perhaps we might refer to Socrates, "The unexamined ..."

After Shopping...

Okay, following up on the shopping trip from Sunday. These are Doc Martens, my favorite shoes. Specifically, these are the ROBSON GRIFFIN 4 EYE CHUKKA, DARK BROWN OVERDRIVE. Never actually seen this style before, but I was looking for some brown Doc Martens, and these felt good when I tried them on. Nice:

And the shirt (made in China) ... it's beautiful, but not my favorite actually. I needed some new shirts to go with the slacks I bought (not shown is a second blue-and-white striped button-down as well). The shirt's not permanent press. I just ironed this one before I took my youngest kid to school. The cotton's super soft and the collar kind of wilts, so I might take it into the cleaners to have it pressed and starched. Haven't done that in a while:

Okay, at my college here, in the faculty dining area. Yesterday was exam day, and I'm taking a coffee break before my 12:30pm class. Look at those Scantrons, probably over 200:

My wife gave me a haircut and I shaved (notice the difference). Eye-glass frames by Ray-Ban (style RB 5095):

More later...

U.S. Prosecutor Recuses Himself in James O'Keefe Case

At Fox News, "U.S. Attorney Steps Down From O'Keefe Case." (Via Memeorandum.) Also, from the Times-Picayune, "U.S. Attorney Jim Letten Recuses Himself From Landrieu Phone Tampering Case." (Via Patterico.)

Also, James O'Keefe's interview on Hannity, "The People’s Office."

Meanwhile, Marcy Wheeler keeps it up with the sexualized slanders, "TeaBugger Victimology." And you gotta notice the dishonesty here. For example:

You know, several days ago I was willing to dismiss this as a stupid juvenile prank. But given the increasing concern that the perpetrators are showing–and their increasingly dubious stories–I’m convinced it merits a closer look.

Well, that's obvoiusly not true, eh, Marcy? See, "Leftists Allege Breitbart Behind Landrieu Office Arrests." And it's not a bugging case, either.

Comparative Interrogation: Ahmed Ghailani and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

It's still unreal that none in the Democratic Party have taken the Flight 253 Christmas bombing attempt seriously. Especially troubling is the completely amateurish arrest and detention of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. It's not always this bad, and interesting, the Obama administration's epic failures have given us additionally important arugments against the Holder Justice Department's approach to terrorism. So says Rivkin and Thiessen in their new piece at Opinion Journal, "A Tale of Two Terrorists":

The Obama administration's decision to read the Christmas Day bomber his Miranda rights has rightly come under withering criticism. Instead of a lengthy interrogation by officials with al Qaeda expertise, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was questioned for 50 minutes by local FBI agents and then later advised of his "right to remain silent."

It's well understood that the focus on gaining evidence for a criminal trial was an intelligence failure of massive proportions. Not well understood is that the most powerful recent argument for aggressively interrogating terrorists, keeping them in military detention, and prosecuting them in military commissions comes to us from the Obama Justice Department itself.

On Dec. 18, 2009, days before the Christmas attack, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, made a secret filing in federal district court that was aimed at saving the prosecution of Ahmed Ghailani, another al Qaeda terrorist. Ghailani is facing charges for helping al Qaeda bomb U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Ghailani argues that those charges should be dropped because lengthy CIA interrogations have denied him his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Mr. Bharara, on behalf of the Justice Department, filed a memorandum with the court stating that Ghailani's claims are dangerous and off the mark. Interrogating terrorists must come before criminal prosecution, he wrote in language so strong that even a redacted version of his filing (which we have obtained) serves as a searing indictment of the administration's mishandling of Abdulmutallab.

"The United States was, and still is, at war with al Qaeda," Mr. Bharara argued. "And because the group does not control territory as a sovereign nation does, the war effort relies less on deterrence than on disruption—on preventing attacks before they can occur. At the core of such disruption efforts is obtaining accurate intelligence about al Qaeda's plans, leaders and capabilities."

Mr. Bharara is right. The interrogation of a high-value terrorist is a critical opportunity to obtain intelligence. As Mr. Bharara pointed out in regards to Ghailani, "the defendant was . . . a rare find, and his then-recent interactions with top-level al Qaeda terrorists made him a potentially rich source of information that was both urgent and crucial to our nation's war efforts." Abdulmutallab's recent interactions with leaders of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula made it likely he could give up actionable intelligence. He possessed unique information about those who deployed him, bomb makers who prepared him, and operatives who trained with him.

As Mr. Bharara's memorandum notes, "The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 . . . naturally resulted in a heightened focus on intelligence gathering to preempt another attack." He went on to say that "when the United States took custody of the defendant . . . and it justifiably believed that he had actionable intelligence that could be used to save lives, it reasonably opted to treat him initially as an intelligence asset."

The Justice Department did not bring Ghailani to a civilian court immediately after he was captured in 2004, preferring, after his lengthy interrogation was completed, to prosecute him in a military commission. It wasn't until June that his case was shifted to the criminal justice system.

Moreover, the government "did not Mirandize the defendant at any point to preserve the possibility of later using his inculpatory statements. It did not maintain a strict chain of custody with respect to physical evidence in the manner of a law enforcement agency. . . . Indeed, the goal of the [CIA interrogation program] was remote from law enforcement; the program's purpose was to gain intelligence, not to get admissible confessions or to gather admissible evidence."

More at the link.

Woman Claims Sexual Assault on Disneyland's 'Tower of Terror'

My wife and I took our oldest boy to Disneyland shortly after Tower of Terror opened in 2004. It's a pretty intense ride, and frankly I doubt I'd be looking to cop a feel to the guests next to me. But it looks like Christina Esquivel's got the evidence to support her allegations that she was criminally groped during the ride. See, "Woman Allegedly Groped on Disney Park Ride":

A woman says a visit to Disneyland with her daughter turned into a nightmare while aboard one of the rides because of what another park guest did. A man and his friend are wanted for questioning as police investigate whether the woman was a victim of sexual battery.

Christina Esquivel looks at a photo of the man she alleges sexually assaulted her with her 12-year-old daughter Alexus right next to her while riding the Tower of Terror at Disney's California Adventure Park last Friday afternoon.

"The lights go out, and you drop, and when the lights went out is when he grabbed my left breast," said Esquivel. "I grabbed his hand and tried to shove him off of me. I didn't know what to think at the time -- just shock."

The photo was shot during the ride, then later sold to customers. The picture was taken just seconds after the alleged incident. The photo shows Esquivel looking at the unidentified man. She says he then reached across and said he was sorry.

"My mom kind of leaned over to me and tried to get away from him as much as possible," said Alexus, Christina's daughter. "And she told me, 'That guy just grabbed my boob.'"

Christina, 31, alleges the man's friend, who was seated behind him, cheered.

"After the guy grabbed me, his friend behind him was laughing and clapping," said Christina.

What do you think? A case for Gloria Allred?

So Tired of All the Darkness in Our Lives...

I saw Joe Jackson twice in concert during his 1983 tour. As per ace commenter Kreiz (who still has a Smashing Pumpkins request in the queue), here's a nice clip of Jackson's "Stepping Out":

I'll never forget bassist Graham Maby, who still tours with J.J.

And as always, check Theo Spark's "Bedtime Totty ..."

Cynthia Yockey Declares War on Gay Patriot Daniel Blatt

When I had that blow out last summer with Cassandra over Erin Andrews, it wasn't long before Cynthia Yockey piled on with this lovely graphic:

The real issue was not that I blogged the Erin Andrews nude video, but that I'm an advocate for traditional marriage. Never mind the fact that I've never "destroyed" anyone's life (that'd be Michael David Barrett, actually). Cynthia went after me when she saw an opportunity -- and frankly, I'd never had any contact with her prior to that. And then here she was basically advocating physical attacks on me. What's up with that? And this is supposed to be a conservative woman?

Well, she's turned her sights on Daniel Blatt of Gay Patriot. See, "Gay Patriot West, With Friends Like You, Same-Sex Marriage Equality Doesn't Need Enemies." Cynthia's alleging that Daniel's never been in a "long-term, committed relationship," and this is supposedly the reason why he's not toeing on gay marriage totalitarianism. I recall Daniel arguing the issue should be decided by the states, as I have recently as well. But for his principled stand on the issue, Cynthia has declared a personal jihad against him:

... it is time for me to put Daniel on notice that I am going to start matching any further denunciations of the quest of gays and lesbians for equality, especially with regard to marriage, by ridiculing him as a man who has never been able to maintain a long-term, committed relationship. Therefore, I suspect Daniel’s rejection of marriage for ALL homosexuals really has to do with his personal inadequacy. But, if I am wrong, and Daniel has found someone, then I think truth and justice will still be better served if Daniel STOPS writing about gay marriage altogether until he has had one for at least five years.

This is all-out war, Daniel. You do NOT deserve to kill the hopes and dreams and aspirations of worthier people who NEED equality to have the same advantages and supports straight people do to build their lives together and support one another through prosperity and adversity until death parts them. Until YOU’VE been married to the man who is the love of your life for at least FIVE years, you do NOT know enough to write about same-sex marriage equality.

Notice how Cynthia offers no underlying argument here. It's really all hatred and prejudice, which is what she's supposed to be against. Why folks like Cassandra and Robert Stacy McCain continue to promote Cynthia is a mystery, but it's certainly not for any purported "conservative" values Cynthia claims to represent. She's simply a leftist who doesn't want to pay high taxes, basically, so any conservative blogger who doesn't toe her line ends up in the crosshairs.

In any case, Daniel's got more on what provoked Cynthia's ire. See, "On Monogamy & Marriage."

John Edwards Would Have Aborted Baby Frances Quinn

The place to be reading this week, for important coverage of Super Bowl-related politics, is Jill Stanek's. She points us, surprisingly, to a New York Times editorial calling out the radical pro-abortion lobby for its attacks on CBS, which is embroiled in the controversy over the Tim Tebow pro-life ad (scheduled to run during the game Sunday).

But last week, Jill reported that John Edwards wanted to abort Frances Quinn Hunter, the beautiful child he brought into the world with Rielle Hunter, the woman with whom he had an affair while his wife was ungoing treatment for cancer. Jill links to this piece at the Wall Street Journal: "Book Report: ‘The Politician’ By Andrew Young." As noted there (with emphasis added):

According to Young, Hunter called him in May 2007 to say she was pregnant. Young says that when he informed Edwards, the senator told him to “handle it,” to which he replied: “I can’t handle this one.” Young writes that Edward unloaded on Hunter as a “crazy slut,” said they had an “open relationship,” and put his paternity chances at “one in three.” Young says that Edwards asked him for help persuading Hunter to have an abortion. Young writes that Hunter believed the baby to be “some kind of golden child, the reincarnated spirit of a Buddhist monk who was going to help save the world.”

As I've reported recently, there is no other issue that's more important to society than the protection of human life, from conception to natural death. I am not one to say that a woman should never, ever have an abortion, but my commitment to protecting the innocents has become much more profound in response to the abortion-on-demand extremism of the Democratic Party, and people like John Edwards.

Now, one of my favorite writers of late is Doctor Zero, who's a co-blogger at Hot Air's Green Room. He wrote a post on the CBS controversy, and it's worth sharing in the context of the pro-choice extremists and John Edwards. From, "The Power of Women and Life":

My own opposition to abortion-on-demand is not religious in nature. I believe there aren’t enough people in the world. The decision to deny a human being his, or her, opportunity to enter the living world and make the choices that compose a lifetime should never be made lightly. For people of religious faith, the exercise of free will was a parting gift to creation from its Author. For the atheist, the expanding nova of human choice brings light and meaning into a universe of cold dust and searing plasma. Either way, life is precious, and it follows that those who follow Pam Tebow’s path are worthy of respect. How can we render that respect, if we insist her choice was absolutely equivalent to terminating little Tim, right up to the moment when his head emerged from the birth canal?

We’re nowhere near the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, a naked exercise of raw judicial power… which is apparently so fragile that a son thanking his mother for the gift of life could tear it to shreds. I wonder how many of the other iron laws supporting statism are actually written on tissue paper. If Roe were repealed, the question of abortion restrictions would return to the states, and people contemplating the examples of Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, and Pam Tebow would gain the dangerous freedom to express their beliefs through smaller, more responsive governments. I can understand why NOW and its fellow travelers would be terrified of that possibility. It has nothing to do with “keeping abortion legal,” for there is no chance Americans would ever vote to outlaw it completely, in every state. It has everything to do with siphoning power from the useful fantasy of a world that will never exist, and the ugly caricatures who tower above it with scourges and holy books.

I especially like that part about pro-life atheism. But read the whole thing.

Also, more on Andrew Young's book on potential baby-killer John Edwards, also at the Wall Street Journal, "The Hazards Of Loyalty: Hypocrisy, Hubris and Rielle Hunter." (Via Memeorandum.)

RELATED: From the NY Daily News, "John Edwards' Ex-Aide Andrew Young Speaks on Alleged Rielle Hunter Sex Tape - And Fears For His Life."

Stephen Walt on USS Harry S. Truman

That's him on the right. And from his essay, "Naval-Gazing: My Visit to the USS Harry S. Truman":

Last week I had the privilege of visiting the USS Harry S. Truman, a Nimitz class aircraft carrier that was conducting training exercises off the coast of Florida in preparation for an overseas deployment. The other guests and I were flown aboard the carrier (on a C2 transport) for a tour of the ship and aseries of briefings about the ship’s operations. We also spent a good chunk of the afternoon and evening observing a variety of air exercises, including night-time takeoffs and landings by the F-18s, EA-6s, and E-2s that make up the ship’s air wing. The following day we breakfasted with members of the ship’s crew, flew via helicopter to the USS Winston S. Churchill (an ArleighBurke class destroyer operating in the area) and then returned to the Truman before catapaulting off the ship and flying back to shore. (Yes, we used a plane to do that, too).

There's lots more at the link.

I guess being a professor at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government has its privileges!

In 1999, as I've mentioned before, I visited the USS Abraham Lincoln. Two years before 9/11, the Navy was interested in maintaing popular support for the fleet, given that we'd been almost a decade without a traditional great power challenger. The ship made a port of call visit in Santa Barbara, and local sightseeing boats took visitors out to the ship, anchored about a mile out from the harbor. Of course, it would have been nice to fly in and out, although the brief tour included being shown around the below-deck operations platform, where the ship's planes are stored, maintained, and readied for operations. I was also permitted to run around on top, on the flight deck. I sat down at the front of the carrier and gazed out over the Pacific. The sun was going down, but not on American power. Sometime shortly thereafter, I picked up a copy of Tom Clancy's, "Carrier: A Guided Tour of an Aircraft Carrier." This is over ten years ago, but I can never forget the majesty of Clancy's discussion, including the rationale for the deployment, and the operational requirements, of the world's largest warships. He notes there, as a sample:

A nation's warships are legally sovereign territories wherever they might be floating: and other nations have no legal influence over their actions or personnel. Thus, an aircraft carrier can park an equivalent of an Air Force fighter wing offshore to conduct sustained flight and/or combat operations. In other words, if a crisis breaks out in some littoral (coastal) region, and a carrier battle group (CVBG) is in the area, then the nation controlling it can influence the outcome of the crisis.

Anyway, be sure to read Stephen Walt's "3 of the most vivid impressions and/or conclusions I took from the trip". I can't say that I'm not envious!

At the Grammys...

I didn't watch the whole thing, although Pink's aerial performance was awesome, as was the duet featuring Taylor Swift with Stevie Nicks. From Randy Lewis, "Ladies Night at the Grammys":

On a night in which Beyoncé set a record for women with six Grammy Awards, the reigning diva of R&B still had to share the spotlight with 20-year-old country-pop princess Taylor Swift, who collected four awards, including album of the year, for "Fearless," the biggest-selling album of 2009.

Swift's win at the end of Sunday night's 3 1/2 -hour ceremony seemed to stun the music-industry audience inside Staples Center in Los Angeles.

"I just hope you know how much this means to me . . . that we get to take this back to Nashville," a breathless Swift said onstage at the 52nd awards. "Oh, my God. Our family is freaking out, my dad and little brother are losing their minds in our living room. This is for my dad and all those times he said I could do anything I wanted."

Beyoncé's stellar evening included song of the year, a writer's award, for her effervescent endorsement of matrimony, "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)." But she and Swift lost their bids for record of the year to the dark horse win by the Southern rock group Kings of Leon for their hit "Use Somebody."

Beyoncé and Swift's combined 10 awards honored recordings that sold in numbers last year that defied the beleaguered music industry's downward trend in recent years, saluting broad-based success at a particularly difficult time in the record business.

"For me, genres have really become something that I don't think people focus on anymore," Swift said backstage. "Country music is my love. [But] when you're making music, I think the healthiest thing to do is remove titles or stereotypes from what you're trying to do. It's not country versus rap . . . it's not anything you don't make it. It's about trying to make an album you hope is good enough to win album of the year."

RTWT at the link.

Photo Credit: Ann Powers, "Ann Powers on the 2010 Grammy Awards: It's Not All About the Music."