Wall Street Journal Defends Obama Administration's Secret Drone Program

There's no mention here of the killing of Awlaki's 16-year-old son (who I doubt was a "senior operational leader" of al Qaeda), but other than that, a great editorial, "King of Drones":

President Obama has been lucky in many ways, but no more so than in not having a Senator Barack Obama to assail his use of Presidential war powers. For surely Senator Obama would now be denouncing the ways that President Obama has embraced the unilateral, even pre-emptive powers that George W. Bush used in prosecuting the war against al Qaeda.

The latest example is the leak to NBC News of a Justice Department "white paper" that summarizes the legal justification for using drones to kill al Qaeda operatives, including American citizens. The white paper summarizes a more detailed legal explanation from Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that remains classified—again, like the habits of the supposedly too secretive Bush Administration.

You may recall that Mr. Obama and Eric Holder, before he became Attorney General, denounced the OLC memos that explained why waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques were legal. Once he became Attorney General, Mr. Holder ostentatiously made four of those memos public on April 16, 2009, along with plenty of moral preening about how the new Administration had banned that sort of barbarism.

Yes, this crowd doesn't arrest and interrogate suspected terrorists. It merely blows them away with missiles from the sky.

Hypocrisy aside, the Justice Department makes an adequate legal case. If John Yoo or Dick Cheney had written it, the document would no doubt be less defensive in asserting executive powers. There might be less talk about "balancing analysis" and more of Constitutional prerogatives. But the Obama paper gets to the correct legal conclusion.

The white paper is naturally being denounced on the anti-antiterror left, which only shows how out of this world these critics are. They claim the Administration has no legal basis for drone strikes, but that ignores the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress after 9/11 and various National Defense Authorization Acts. Both explicitly give the President the power to capture and kill members of al Qaeda and its allies who have taken up arms against the U.S.

Critics shout that the white paper is a license to kill anyone, anywhere, but that is also false. The memo limits the targets to "a senior operational leader" of al Qaeda "or its associated forces." Congress deliberately included the latter phrase because al Qaeda is a loose network that can strike in many places. It recognizes that this is a long conflict that will be fought in many places and that jihadists will seek new sanctuaries. But the white paper is not a justification to start targeting Tamil Tigers or Karen rebels in Burma.

As for the alleged lack of judicial review, a sure way to lose a war is to require that judges approve a list of enemy targets on the battlefield. In its Bush-era rulings, the Supreme Court merely allowed detainees the right of habeas review once they are in custody. It did not say a judge should have to approve drone strikes or determine who could or couldn't be attacked in battle.

Joe Scarborough: John Yoo's Torture Memos 'Are Child's Play Compared to What the Government Can Do Now and Who They Can Kill...'

This is compelling television, at MSNBC, amazingly.

See Business Insider, "Joe Scarborough Blasts 'Terrifying' Drone Memo: 'If George Bush Had Done This, It Would Have Been Stopped'":

The morning after NBC's Michael Isikoff scooped the memo on the U.S. government's rationalization for legally killing American citizens, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough tore into the program as "terrifying."

"It's hard to say how many stop signs were blown through here," Scarborough said of the white paper, a 16-page document that details the legality of drone strikes on American citizens.

"But for those who were shocked at the Bush administration 'torture memos,' they must be really stunned at this." He called the drone memo "child's play" compared to the so-called "torture memos."

Calling it an "absolute mess" and so frightening, Scarborough said that "if George Bush had done this, it would have been stopped."

Orwellian Drift

Via the Looking Spoon.

PREVIOUSLY: "Oh yes, al Qaeda has been decimated, war is peace, ignorance is strength and freedom is slavery!"

RELATED: "Kirsten Powers: Left's Hypocrisy on Obama's 'Unconstitutional' Drone Strike Memo is 'Completely Despicable'." (And remember, the White House identifies its targeted exterminations with an Orwellian euphemism, the "disposition matrix." FORWARD!!)

Majority Views Government as Threat to Personal Rights

This was posted at Pew last week, "Majority Says the Federal Government Threatens Their Personal Rights":

As Barack Obama begins his second term in office, trust in the federal government remains mired near a historic low, while frustration with government remains high. And for the first time, a majority of the public says that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Jan. 9-13 among 1,502 adults, finds that 53% think that the federal government threatens their own personal rights and freedoms while 43% disagree.

In March 2010, opinions were divided over whether the government represented a threat to personal freedom; 47% said it did while 50% disagreed. In surveys between 1995 and 2003, majorities rejected the idea that the government threatened people’s rights and freedoms.

The growing view that the federal government threatens personal rights and freedoms has been led by conservative Republicans. Currently 76% of conservative Republicans say that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms and 54% describe the government as a “major” threat. Three years ago, 62% of conservative Republicans said the government was a threat to their freedom; 47% said it was a major threat.

By comparison, there has been little change in opinions among Democrats; 38% say the government poses a threat to personal rights and freedoms and just 16% view it as a major threat.

The Plight of the Alpha Female

This is awesome.

At the clip, Kennedy the lovely libertarian interviews Kay Hymowitz on her recent article at City Journal, "The Plight of the Alpha Female":

Women remain scarce in the most elite positions. And it's by choice.

Obama to Release Secret Drone Memos

Watch out for fireworks at Brennan's testimony tomorrow.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Obama agrees to release memos on Awlaki strike":

WASHINGTON — President Obama, who has championed lethal drone strikes as a major part of U.S. counter-terrorism efforts, bowed to pressure Wednesday and agreed to allow the Senate and House intelligence committees to review classified legal memos used to justify a drone strike against a U.S. citizen in Yemen in 2011.

Senators had demanded for months to see the Justice Department opinions that provided the White House legal authority to order the targeted killing of Anwar Awlaki, a New Mexico native who became an Al Qaeda leader.

Complaints by several Democrats over not receiving the documents had cast a shadow on the Senate confirmation hearing Thursday of John Brennan, the White House counter-terrorism advisor tapped to be CIA director.

An administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss classified material, described the decision to release the classified Office of Legal Counsel material as "part of the president's ongoing commitment to consult with Congress on national security matters."

"I think this is an encouraging first step," said Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who sits on the Intelligence Committee and was among those who had publicly complained about being denied access to the material. He said Americans must "understand the rules under which a president may make these consequential decisions."

Wyden said Obama had "assured me that all of the documents concerning the legal opinions on the targeted killing of Americans will immediately be made available" to the intelligence committees.

Brennan is likely to face questions about the drone strikes that he oversaw in the last four years.

In written answers to 40 pre-hearing questions from the Senate Intelligence Committee, Brennan said civilian casualties from CIA drone strikes had been "exceedingly rare," repeating language he used last April after published reports alleged numerous civilian casualties in Pakistan and Yemen.

Former U.S. officials say that, for a time, the intelligence community considered every military-age male killed in a CIA drone strike to have been a militant.

Brennan declined to explain how U.S. authorities conclude that a militant is "associated" with Al Qaeda or whether the threat he poses is sufficiently "imminent" to warrant being targeted for a missile strike.

Brennan said, without elaborating, that those determinations are made on a "case-by-case basis" by intelligence professionals.

Also at CNN, "BREAKING: Obama to hand over drone documents ahead of Brennan hearing." (At Memeorandum.)

Ex-Communist David Nicholson Chaired the NHS Strategic Health Authority During Height of Deaths at Mid Staffordshire

This is something of a blockbuster, at London's Daily Mail, "David Nicholson - The ex-communist NHS chief, the young wife he fast-tracked and a very lavish lifestyle:

As a young NHS trainee at the height of the Cold War, David Nicholson idolised Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev.

At the same time as starting work in a mental health unit, the Bristol University graduate joined the Communist Party in 1977.

He was no ordinary revolutionary. He was on the hardline, so-called ‘Tankie’ wing of the party which backed the Kremlin using military action to crush dissident uprisings.
Today, David Nicholson is the £270,000-a year chief executive of the NHS.

The one-time radical who used to regard political honours as elitist symbols of bourgeoisie government was happy to be knighted in 2010.

Nicknamed the ‘Big Beast’ of the NHS because of his abrasive management style, his rise up the management ladder saw him take control of the strategic health authority responsible for supervising Stafford Hospital between 2005 and 2006.

It was during this period that patients needlessly died because of appalling standards of care.

Today’s damning report into the scandal could yet bring an end to his career – during which he forced through the last Labour government’s controversial ‘target culture’ that fatally undermined the ethos of care that has traditionally been a hallmark of NHS hospitals.

It has been a remarkable journey for a man who was a Communist for six years until his membership lapsed in 1983.

Critics say that the ‘uncaring culture’ that has developed in some aspects of healthcare can be likened to the one that prevailed during the godless Soviet regimes.
But Nicholson, 57, won’t discuss his Communist past.

What an asshole.

A freakin' Stalinist who threw Brezhnev under the for the bureaucracy-fueled upper bourgeoisie. Yeah, big surprise there that all the people died on his watch.

Here's more at the piece:

Incidentally, relations between Nicholson and [MP Andrew] Lansley had never recovered after the minister spotted the civil service chief travelling first class by train to a conference when Lansley himself was going to the same meeting, but in second class.

But then Nicholson loves travelling first class. On Saturday, the Mail disclosed that he racked up nearly £6,000 in 41 first-class train tickets in a year to Birmingham.

Each time he claimed to have been ‘attending official meetings’ but, in fact, they were held via video-conferencing, meaning he could have taken part from anywhere in the country. MPs have indicated that they will ask Nicholson to justify the expenditure.

Many of the trips spanned ‘long weekends’, prompting speculation he was going to his see his new young wife at their home in Birmingham.

Divorced with two grown-up sons, Nicholson had earlier got engaged in 2009 to Sarah-Jane Marsh, the chief executive of Birmingham Children’s Hospital.

It was not just the 22-year age gap which caused consternation. It was also the fact Nicholson met her while she was seconded to his office as a junior.

Care for the Midlands and East of England, took a shine to the attractive graduate trainee, acting as her mentor.

He also gave her two job references – the second leading to her appointment as chief operating officer at Birmingham Children’s Hospital. She was in the job when the Health Care Commission delivered a devastating report over a catalogue of patient failures at the hospital.

Two years later, despite the criticism, she became chief executive on a £155,000 salary, at the relatively youthful age of 32. By this time she was engaged to Nicholson – the all-powerful head of the NHS.

For his part, Nicholson has told NHS trusts to deliver between £15billion and £20billion in efficiency savings before 2014 (the equivalent of to up to 6 per cent of the current NHS budget).

Meanwhile, his own personal spending included £155,000 worth of expenses in four years. His annual expenses for his plush London flat was triple the MPs’ second homes allowance.

He gave up the property on condition that taxpayers covered any hotel bills incurred and despite the fact he chose to live in Birmingham. He also has a chauffeur-driven car.

How ironic if this former Communist party member’s downfall was triggered not by the tragic effects of the ‘target culture’ he ruthlessly enforced which contributed to the fiasco at Stafford, but if he was censured by a committee of MPs for using taxpayers’ money on his lavish expenses.

Yes. Ironic.

This guy's living a more corruptly lavish lifestyle than an Obama administration crony cabinet member. God help the United States should our newly socialized healthcare system befall the same fate at the NHs.

RELATED: At Telegraph UK, "Stafford scandal: Francis report - the recommendations," and "and "3,000 more patients have died needlessly in hospital":

More than 3,000 people may have died unnecessarily at five NHS trusts in a crisis that could dwarf the horrors at Mid Staffordshire, which were detailed in a devastating report on Wednesday.

Lovely healthcare system they've got there. Just lovely.

Kirsten Powers: Left's Hypocrisy on Obama's 'Unconstitutional' Drone Strike Memo is 'Completely Despicable'

This is great, at Noisy Room, "Kirsten Powers: Liberal Media ‘Don’t Really Care About Human Rights’ Unless it ‘Helps Them Politically’." Watch it at the link.

They don't care. They don't care at all. The left cares about power. They couldn't give a f-k about the human rights of terrorists --- or Americans. And naturally, President Obama is the f-king worst. Progressives are literally depraved. Indeed. "Despicable," in Powers' words.

Who's Defending the Targeted Executions of Americans?

As regular readers know, the U.S. government's drone program isn't that controversial to me, except for the fact of the Obama administration's enormous moral bankruptcy and political hypocrisy. I would admit, however, that the killing of Awkaki's 16-year-old son is problematic. It seems to me that if the U.S. Supreme Court is willing to prohibit capital punishment for minors, then there needs to be something above and beyond the raising-arms-against-the-U.S. argument for such a targeted killing. And was the kid even himself a terrorist? Or he was unlucky enough to have a father who was alleged to be a terrorist?

In any case, if waterboarding was justification enough for progressives for the Bush/Cheney "regime" to face war crimes trials, then Obama/Bidens's targeted assassinations should be worth even more under international human rights law. I'm still reading around the horn on this, but with Brennan's hearings tomorrow the story's going to be prominently featured in the news for the next few days, at least. Meanwhile, a number of folks on the right are defending the president's prerogatives and justifiable national security measures. So, it's quite the assortment of backers and opponents of these due process-free killings of U.S. citizens.

The neocons at Commentary are defending the program, for example, Max Boot, "Obama Drone Memo is a Careful, Responsible Document"; Jonahthan Tobin, "Obama Is Hypocritical but Right on Drones"; and Peter Wehner, "Drone Strikes, Waterboarding, and Moral Preening."

Meanwhile, here's Nick Gillespie at Reason, "Do You Agree With White House that Drone Strikes are 'Legal,' 'Ethical,' and 'Wise'? You Shouldn't."

A Constitutional Convention — The Last Step Before Revolution

From Glenn Reynolds' excellent column, at USA Today, "A revolution in the works?":

The political class usually gets its way, because it thinks about politics -- and its own position -- every waking moment, while the rest of America thinks about these things only in fits and starts, in between living everyday life. But if there's an upside to the increasing unhappiness that most Americans feel toward the political class, it's that maybe it means people are paying closer attention.

What's next? In my constitutional law class the other day, most of my students took the position that they would be unlikely to see a Constitutional Convention in their lifetimes. I'm not so sure. Last year I spoke at a Harvard Law School conference on holding a new Constitutional Convention, one which had participants from all sorts of ideological positions ranging from the Tea Party to the Occupy Wall Street movement. (People got along surprisingly well.)

In the American system, a Constitutional Convention -- which has never been held since the Constitution was adopted -- is the last stop before revolution. It was intended as a way for the people to end-run the political establishment; if enough states request a convention, Congress has no choice but to call it, and the resulting proposals go straight to the states for ratification, bypassing Congress. It's a way to make drastic changes when the political class has blocked smaller ones.

Are we there yet? I don't think so. But we're getting closer all the time. Political class, take note.

RTWT.

It Was Never About Hunting

A great cartoon, at Only Guns and Money, "While hunting is a great tradition in the United States, the purpose of the Second Amendment wasn't to protect it."

BONUS: See Bob Owens taking Greg Sargent to the woodshed:

Requiring government-issued photo/background checks won’t stop or even significantly impede the ability of criminals to acquire firearms, but these same requirements severely cramp the ability of progressives to commit voter fraud, which is one of their greatest strengths.

RTWT.

British Conservatives Vote for Homosexual Marriage

At Independent UK, "MPs vote for gay marriage bill by 400 to 175 in face of widespread Tory rebellion."

What Obama's Gun Proposals Left Out

Some key points on the gun debate, at CSM. Most have said that the president's executive orders are window dressing to score political points, but the argument about addressing single parent households is vital:

President Obama took 23 executive actions on Wednesday to curb firearm-related deaths. That and his proposals to Congress for new gun laws are a necessary response to the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

Perhaps his most important action is a directive for new research “on the causes and prevention of gun violence.” More restrictions on firearms may keep guns away from killers, but a better understanding of the roots of violent behavior – and then addressing them – would be far more effective. Most gun crimes are not done by people with mental illness but by sane people who are prone to violence.

Unfortunately, the White House seemed to focus the new research only on the relationship between violence and the kind of video games and other media images that may influence a killer. While such data would be helpful, kids who imitate fictional violence often do so because they lack a supportive family.

OPINION: Why I'm giving up my guns

Mr. Obama has often noted the need to promote marriage and family – his own family certainly serves as a model. But he must also back research that looks at links between violence and children born out of wedlock or raised by single parents.

One recent study by the Brookings Center on Children and Families, for example, found that children whose births resulted from unintended pregnancy are more likely to “engage in delinquent and criminal behavior later in life.” Author and noted psychologist Andrew Solomon finds that the first risk factor in the making of a criminal is being raised by a single parent.

Current statistics on the home lives of children are not encouraging.

Nearly 26 percent are raised by single parents, and that figure jumps to 72 percent for blacks and 71 percent for the poor. For mothers with only a high school education, more than 4 out of 10 of their children are born out of wedlock – or three times the rate of the 1980s. Only a third of births to women who are unmarried and not cohabiting are intended.

Cohabitation, in fact, has taken off. The number of couples living together without the commitment and protection of being married has more than doubled since the 1990s. In 2012, 40 percent of unmarried partners had children younger than 18.

Both public and private leaders “refuse to take on the issue of children raised by single parents – despite all the statistics showing harm – or deal with it in a meaningful way,” said Robert Doar, commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration, in a speech last week.

More at that top link.

This is the national debate we should be having. I've said it many times, but his refusal to address the crisis of the black family will be Obama's biggest failing --- and that's saying a lot considering how f-ked up this president is.

Glenn Greenwald on Obama's License to Kill Americans

I frankly disagree with much of the analysis here, although Greenwald's moral outrage is always a riot, "Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens." This part is very good, regardless:

When the New York Times back in April, 2010 first confirmed the existence of Obama's hit list, it made clear just what an extremist power this is, noting: "It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing." The NYT quoted a Bush intelligence official as saying "he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president". When the existence of Obama's hit list was first reported several months earlier by the Washington Post's Dana Priest, she wrote that the "list includes three Americans".

What has made these actions all the more radical is the absolute secrecy with which Obama has draped all of this. Not only is the entire process carried out solely within the Executive branch - with no checks or oversight of any kind - but there is zero transparency and zero accountability. The president's underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be executed, and the president - at a charming weekly event dubbed by White House aides as "Terror Tuesday" - then chooses from "baseball cards" and decrees in total secrecy who should die. The power of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner are all consolidated in this one man, and those powers are exercised in the dark.

I didn't have time, but I would've loved to post all the progressive hypocrisy on the administration's murderous, unprecedented executive tyranny. As I always say, leftist don't care about liberty. They care about power. We should have long ago seen protests up and down Pennsylvania Avenue, calling for Obama war crimes trials at the Hague. But that only happens when a Republican's in the White House. The moral bankruptcy is just stunning.

Brennan Confirmation Hearings to Put Spotlight on Administration's Drone Strikes

This ought to be interesting.

At the New York Times, "Drone Strikes’ Dangers to Get Rare Moment in Public Eye."

Also at Guardian UK, "John Brennan faces grilling over drone leak as senators demand answers."

Calvin Klein Superbowl Model is Matthew Terry, From Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Norah O'Donnell of CBS News was digging it:

@norahodonnell She liked it. Hey Norah! #CalvinKlein
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) February 4, 2013

And here's the real dude, at London's Daily Mail, "Calvin Klein's Super Bowl hunk reveals the secret behind THOSE abs (and ladies, he's still single)."

Come and Take

At AWD, "LOOK WHO’S SPORTING A MOLON LABE T SHIRT!

An iOWNTHEWORLD joint, "The Shirt Never Looked Better."

Here's That Video of Touré Defending Obama's 'License to Kill' Drone Strike Memo

Here's the report at Twitchy, "New unmanned drone superfan Touré ‘very comfortable’ with killing Al-Qaeda leaders."

And Glenn Greenwald was ripping hard on MSNBC on Twitter.

There's a lot of news on this, fascinating news. Hannity featured a dynamite opening segment earlier and I'll try to post that later. Meanwhile, at The Hill, "Carney: Drone strikes are ‘fully consistent’ with the Constitution." (Via Memeorandum.)

The Progressive War on Science and Reason

I like this commentary, although at this point I don't trust anybody on "climate change" science. And as I've never been a hardcore creationist myself, I'd be careful about lumping conservatives wholesale into any "anti-science" category. But again, I really like the corrective here on who's truly anti-science and irrational.

From Alex Berezow and Hank Campbell, at the NewScientist, "Lefty nonsense: When progressives wage war on reason":

We have all heard about the Republican war on science; we want to draw attention to the progressive war on reason.

We recognise that the term "progressive" is potentially troublesome, so let us lay our cards on the table. In the US, "progressive" and "liberal" are often used interchangeably. But the two should not be confused.

Liberalism, as defined by John Locke, means the pursuit of liberty. By that definition progressives are not liberal. Though they claim common cause with liberals (and most of them are Democrats because very few progressives are Republican), today's progressive movement is actually socially authoritarian.

Unlike conservative authoritarians, however, they are not concerned with banning "immoral" things like sex, drugs and rock and roll. They instead seek dominion over issues such as food, the environment and education. And they claim that their policies are based on science, even when they are not.

For example, progressive activists have championed the anti-vaccine movement, confusing parents and causing a public health disaster. They have campaigned against animal research even when it remains necessary, in some cases committing violence against scientists. Instead of embracing technological progress, such as genetically modified crops, progressives have spread fear and misinformation. They have waged war against academics who question their ideology, and they are opposed to sensible reforms in science education.

We do not want not to demonise all progressives. Some are genuinely pro-science. We recognise the huge value some progressive ideas have had, and that vilifying an entire philosophy based on the actions of its radical ideologues would be unfair.

But we do want to demonise the lunatic fringe. We contend that there is a disturbing and largely unreported trend among influential progressive activists who misinterpret, misrepresent and abuse science to advance their ideological and political agendas.

Of all of today's political philosophies, progressivism stands as the most pressing problem for science. Progressives, not conservatives, are the ones most likely to replace scientific research with unscientific ideology.

Conservatives who endorse unscientific ideas are blasted by the scientific community, yet progressives who do the same get a free pass. It is important the problem be recognised, and that free pass revoked.

Be sure to read the whole thing, since there's a fabulous introduction on how the congressional Democrats switched to "environmentally sustainable" utensils at the Capitol Hill cafeteria in 2007, only to abandon the program (and blaming the Republicans for pulling the plug) after the GOP took back power in 2011.

I also like how the authors do not identify leftists as "liberals." That's important. They are not liberal. They are authoritarian.

Most of all, though, the conclusion bears repeating: "Of all of today's political philosophies, progressivism stands as the most pressing problem for science. Progressives, not conservatives, are the ones most likely to replace scientific research with unscientific ideology." Word.

How the Tories Are Screwing the Pooch — And Screwing Britain

From Melanie Phillips, at London's Daily Mail, "Why failing to stand up for marriage is the reason Tories are always in crisis":

The Tories are in ferment. Plots against David Cameron appear to be seeding like dandelion spores. Rebellion looms in the division lobbies.

The list of Mr Cameron's apparent crimes lengthens by the day.

The threatened triple-dip depression. Gay marriage. Labour's lead in the opinion polls. And the fact that the Prime Minister looks like a loser.

To which one might marvel at just what a shower these Tories are.

For they have behaved mutinously towards every one of their leaders since they toppled Mrs Thatcher in 1990.

The reason for this never-ending uproar surely lies deeper, however, than indiscipline among power-crazed MPs or the deficiencies of individual leaders.

Indeed, it explains why the Tories just can't seem to produce a leader they do support.
It is that conservatism itself is in crisis.

With some honourable exceptions, today's Tories don't appear to know what conservatism is for and what it is against.

In the last century, they all knew they had to defend Britain against socialism.
But when the Berlin Wall fell and Labour started speaking the language of market economics, the Tories seemed to conclude that their fox had been shot.

Fiasco

They could not have been more wrong. The attempt by the Left to undermine and topple Western society had merely shifted from political revolution to social and cultural issues.

And at the very centre of that systematic onslaught lay the intention to destroy the unique importance of the married family and replace it by a lifestyle free-for-all.
Not understanding the full significance of what was happening, the Tories made a total mess of the issue in the 'back to basics' fiasco under John Major, and then staged a full retreat under a barrage of attacks from the Left....

For at the heart of the decades-long onslaught by the Left against the core tenets of Western society lies the doctrine of 'non-judgmentalism', under which it has become forbidden to suggest that anyone's lifestyle is more socially desirable than any other.
Worse still, those whose behaviour lies outside conventional social norms are deemed to be 'victims' and their demands have been relabelled 'rights'.

So views that mothers and fathers are better for children than lone parents or step-parents, or that deliberately having babies outside marriage is selfish and irresponsible, have became unsayable.

The fundamental need children have for their own mother and father has simply been trumped by the selfish desires of adults.

Breakdown

To mask this abandonment of children, their core need was redefined as being 'lifted out of poverty' - which merely made their mothers ever more dependent on state benefits, and thus promoted sexual anarchy even further.

The result has been an unmitigated disaster. In some areas, several generations of family disintegration have resulted in a total breakdown in parenting, so that children are becoming horrifyingly incapable of even basic functions.

According to the Government's adviser on problem families, Louise Casey, some three-year-olds are unable to walk because they are habitually parked in their buggies in front of the TV.

And Russell Hobby, general secretary of the National Association of Headteachers, has spoken of children who, when they come to school, can only grunt as they haven't been taught to speak; and who may also still be in nappies at the age of five.

Ms Casey laments that no official initiatives seem to get through to such families. Of course not - because the one thing that is needed above all, to remove the perverse incentives that have destroyed marriage in such areas, is the one policy that will never be enacted.

The real reason the Tories won't properly address this is not just the inane social nihilism of Nick Clegg. It is surely because the Tory leadership itself has such a shallow and reductive view of marriage - including among its supposed cheerleaders.

Look at the reasons they give for supporting marriage - that it promotes stability, unselfishness and self-sacrifice. That was the substance of Michael Gove's paean of praise for the institution yesterday, as he made the case for extending it to gays.

RTWT at that top link.

And also, "DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Gay marriage and a split no one wanted."

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Caves on ObamaCare's Medicaid Expansion

She's a real fighter, and always one of my favorite GOP governors, but this is not the best news.

At WSJ, "The GOP's ObamaCare Flippers":

As D-Day looms for ObamaCare, one big question is how many states will sign up for its Medicaid expansion. The recent and spectacular flip-flop of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is a case study in the political pressure and fiscal gimmicks designed to get states to succumb. It's also a study in the arcane and perverse ObamaCare incentives that are intended to gather ever more health-care spending under federal control.

***
Arizona's current Medicaid program is well run by the program's standards—a low bar—but it is also too large. The program now finances one of every two in-state births and two of every three days seniors spend in nursing homes. Spending tripled in the last decade to $9 billion a year.

That's despite $1.8 billion in cuts since 2009. The state fisc was such a mess that in 2010 Arizona Medicaid banned paying for several types of organ transplants. In March of that year, Ms. Brewer wrote to Mr. Obama calling the Affordable Care Act "a vast new entitlement program that our country does not have the resources to support" and also one that "makes our situation much worse, exacerbating our state's fiscal woes by billions of dollars."

Arizona argued before the Supreme Court that the Medicaid mandate was unconstitutional, anti-federalist commandeering—and seven Justices agreed it was "a gun to the head" and allowed states to opt out without penalty.

But so much for that. In her State of the State address last month, Ms. Brewer pulled a political 180°—or maybe 540°—and said expanding Medicaid would "inject $2 billion into our economy and "save and create thousands of jobs." (Is Larry Summers moonlighting as a Brewer speechwriter?)

One secret of her switcheroo is Medicaid's "matching rate" formula, in which the feds pick up 67% of Arizona's existing spending and 100% (and later 90%) of the costs of ObamaCare's newly eligible population. The state supposedly no longer needs to spend "billions" but merely an extra $154 million in 2014—then bank $1.6 billion from Washington, which her budget documents call "a return on investment of more than 10-to-1."

How can the state conjure such money from nothing? The answer is that Ms. Brewer and Arizona hospitals have cooked up a spending scheme to rip off national taxpayers to avoid even the $154 million the state would at first pay. The hospital lobby first floated this scheme in 2011 "for the specific purpose of generating matching federal Medicaid funds."

Continue reading.

RELATED: At Politico, "Kasich's Obamacare flip burns conservatives."

A Decade of Missteps for U.S. Counterterror Policy in Africa?

At the Washington Post, "U.S. counterterrorism efforts in Africa defined by a decade of missteps":

The U.S. military was closely tracking a one-eyed bandit across the Sahara in 2003 when it confronted a hard choice that is still reverberating a decade later. Should it try to kill or capture the target, an Algerian jihadist named Mokhtar Belmokhtar, or let him go?

Belmokhtar had trained at camps in Afghanistan, returned home to join a bloody revolt and was about to be blacklisted by the United Nations for supporting the Taliban and al-Qaeda. But he hadn’t attacked Americans, not yet, and did not appear to pose a threat outside his nomadic range in the badlands of northern Mali and southern Algeria.

Military commanders planned to launch airstrikes against Belmokhtar and a band of Arabs they had under surveillance in the Malian desert, according to three current and former U.S. officials familiar with the episode. But the ambassador to Mali at the time said she vetoed the plan, arguing that a strike was too risky and could stir a backlash against Americans.

Since then, Belmokhtar has gradually built a Qaeda-branded network while expanding his exploits as a serial kidnapper, smuggler and arms dealer. Last month, his group, Signatories in Blood, took dozens of hostages at a natural-gas complex in Algeria. At least 38 foreign captives were killed, including three Americans.

In addition to raising his global profile, the spectacular attack turned Belmokhtar into a symbol of how the United States over the past 10 years bungled an ambitious strategy to prevent al-Qaeda from gaining a foothold in North and West Africa.

The U.S. government has invested heavily in counterterrorism programs in the region, spending more than $1 billion since 2005 to train security forces, secure borders, promote democracy, reduce poverty and spread propaganda.

The strategy was portrayed as a sobering lesson from the costly invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. By stabilizing weak African countries, the goal was to keep al-Qaeda out and obviate the need to send U.S. combat forces into the Sahara.

Despite those efforts, Belmokhtar’s group and a hazy array of other jihadist factions and rebellious tribesmen seized control of the northern half of Mali last year. In March, a U.S.-trained Malian officer carried out a coup, further plunging the country into chaos.

“We had this great program and we put hundreds of millions of dollars into it, and it failed. Why did it fail?” said a member of the U.S. Special Operations Forces who worked in Africa until he retired last year. “Fundamentally, we missed the boat.”

Amazing, isn't it? Not a mention of how the Obama administration's invasion of Libya, not to mention the whole Arab Spring clusterf-k, has unleashed a torrent of newly-vigorous terrorist activity in Africa. Here's how Der Spiegel described things last month, "Algeria Hostage Crisis Highlights Islamist Threat Across North Africa":

The security situation in Libya has visibly worsened since the beginning of the uprising against dictator Moammar Gadhafi nearly two years ago. The military has been essentially dissolved and weapons from Gadhafi's armed forces have flooded the markets in the region, ending up in the hands of various militias, including the extremists in northern Mali. Fifteen months after Gadhafi's death, a stable and sustainable government has yet to take hold. Real control over the country rests with competing warlords, and Islamist groups in the region have profitted.

The blood bath at the oil field shows that Algeria has been the most impacted by the developments in Mali. For this reason, Algiers has long opposed French military intervention in its southern neighbor. Algeria itself is still suffering the consequences of its civil war in the 1990s, in which fighting between the military and Islamists killed hundreds of thousands of people.

Anyway, WaPo's piece takes U.S. policy up to the present and doesn't discuss the collapse of security in North Africa over the last two years. But I wouldn't want to impute bias or anything. No siree. (More here, FWIW.)

Robert Reich, Former Clinton Administration Labor Secretary, Rails Against 'Indefensible Wealth'

Boy, this is really something else.

And remember, someone like Robert Reich defines the progressive establishment. Not only was he a former Clinton labor secretary, he's a co-founder of the neo-socialist rag American Prospect, and he was one of the Democrat Party's biggest shills for Occupy Wall Street during its brief leadership of the left's class-warfare agenda. (Barack Obama subsequently took Occupy's baton in early 2012 and has been running on the 99 percent platform since.)

See Twitchy, "Robert Reich disturbed by something called ‘indefensible wealth’."

Rarely in history has so much been spent by the very wealthy seeking intellectual and moral justification for their indefensible wealth.
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) February 4, 2013

Previously: "#Occupy Shill Robert Reich Says Socialism Not the Answer, Wealth Redistribution Is — Wait, What?"

Fabulous Kelly Brook Bikini Pics!

Craig Ramsey sent me this via Twitter. I've never heard of the website at that link, so unless you're on Apple, click through at your own risk.

On the safer side, see this huge roundup at London's Daily Mail, "She's looking just rosy! Kelly Brook shows off her impressive curves as she models new bikini line."

She's gained weight. And it shows in the upstairs department. At this point it's a countdown for how long Ms. Brooks will be able to continuing modeling the way she does. I don't get the sense she takes care of her body with the same fastidiousness as, say, Cindy Crawford. I'm not complaining. She's more than ten years younger than the latter. But still. Seems like the hotties come and go rather quickly sometimes. Brooks' 15 minutes could well be about up.

Svitlana Buchyk

I'm just going to point folks over to The Other McCain on this one. Pretty interesting.

See, "Svitlana Buchyk: Mystery Woman in Menendez HookerGate Scandal."

And see David Martosko, at the Daily Caller, "PHOTOS: Meet one of Bob Menendez’s (alleged) call girls [SLIDESHOW]."

Piers Morgan Takes Target Practice at Texas Gun Range!

I was watching this. What a kicker.

At Twitchy, "Piers Morgan lives out his ‘Scarface’ fantasy at Texas gun range."

Embattled Sen. Robert Menendez Denounces the 'Smears' (VIDEO)

I was just watching this a little while ago. "Sleaze Bob" was getting pretty animated.

At CNN, "Menendez fights back, denounces 'smears'."

More here, "Woman denies meeting Menendez." And at Memeorandum.

PREVIOUSLY: "Sen. Robert Menendez Underage Prostitution Scandal."

Hotties on the Red Carpet at Academy Awards Nominees Luncheon

Very nice.

At London's Daily Mail, "Keeping it simple! Anne Hathaway, Naomi Watts and Jennifer Lawrence stick to classic black and white at Oscars luncheon."

Lots more hotties in attendance as well.

More at the Los Angeles Times, "85th Academy Awards Nominees Luncheon."

Obama's Latest Gun-Grabbing Speech in Minneapolis (VIDEO)

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports, "Obama in Mpls.: 'It is time to do something' about gun violence."

It's the same stump speech O's been giving for months now, if not years. And he sounds desperate while claiming he's not going to take away anyone's guns. And for good reason: He's obviously lying. He would if he could.

I don't see the transcript, but Lynn Sweet has this, "President Obama official schedule and guidance, Feb. 4, 2013. Minneapolis gun violence events." And at the White House blog, "Keeping Up the Demand for Action on Gun Violence."

More at the Wall Street Journal, "Senate to Move on Gun Control: Magazine Capacity Likely to Face Limit." And from the Sunlight Foundation, "Why gun control faces an uphill battle in the Senate." (That's a nice graphic on the Senate vote breakdown, via Memeorandum.)

UPDATE: Linked at iOWNTHEWORLD. Thanks!

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad Prepares for Space Flight

At Gateway Pundit, "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: I Am Ready to Be First Iranian in Space." (At Memeorandum.).

IMAGE CREDIT: Blazing Cat Fur.

Sen. Robert Menendez Underage Prostitution Scandal

At The Other McCain, "HookerGate: Miami Herald Confirms Elements of Menendez Prostitute Story," and "Dominican Prostitute in Menendez Scandal Says They Were ‘Very Mistreated’." (Lots of links at the posts.) (Added: Now a Memeorandum thread.)

And see Flopping Aces, "Menendez: The noose tightens," and at Michelle Malkin's, "Ladies Against Senator Sleaze-Bob: Where are you?; Updated." (A call for bipartisanship!)

CSCOPE Communist Indoctrination in Texas

Here's your morning dose of progressive/communist indoctrination in America's schools --- and in Texas, of all places.

At EAG News, "Texas 6th graders design flags for a new socialist nation."

And at Texas CSCOPE Review, "CSCOPE’s Communist Indoctrination":

CSCOPE is the prelude to having the Obama Common Core Standards in our schools. Via our Texas School Superintendents, who are studying how to implement Common Core, our state Education services centers are setting in place the perfect technology framework called CSCOPE.

Following are the instruction from the CSCOPE activity directing students to design a socialist/communist flag.

Notice socialist/communist nations use symbolism on their flags representing various aspects of their economic system. Imagine a new socialist nation is creating a flag and you have been put in charge of creating a flag. Use symbolism to represent aspects of socialism/communism on your flag. What kind of symbolism/colors would you use?

Also at CSOPE Review, "CSCOPE Promotes Communism."

Be sure to click through to get a load of that graphic featuring the triumphant social climb to the communist utopia. Remember, children are sponges for this kind of stuff --- which is exactly why this CSCOPE curriculum tries to get 'em while they're young. Amazing. Brilliant even. American communism works its way through the institutions. FORWARD!!

More at Memeorandum.

Former Navy SEAL, 'American Sniper' Chris Kyle, Killed at Texas Shooting Range

This was one of the big stories over the weekend. Here's the CBS News segment from this morning, "Top SEAL sniper allegedly murdered by fellow vet."

And here's this morning's New York Times, "Untouchable in Iraq, Ex-Sniper Dies in a Shooting Back Home." And at the Los Angeles Times, "'American Sniper' Chris Kyle shot dead in a post-combat world."

Updates on the shooter at Dallas Morning News, "Alleged shooter of Navy SEAL Tasered after being aggressive with jailers." And at London's Daily Mail, "Marine who 'killed' the top American sniper and his workout buddy now being held on $3million bail after confessing to his sister."

More at Newsmax, "Palin Mourns “American Sniper” Kyle's Death."

Guns in Movies

Here's another example of our upside down world. As everyone knows, the movie industry is our culture's greatest purveyor of gun violence, but very few (if any) anti-gun nuts have called for limits on action flick shoot-'em ups.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Database catalogs movie firearms."

Read it all at the link. Aficionadoes don't see their gun-soaked films as contributing to a culture of violence. It's a strange world we live in. A f-ked up world.

New Gas Extraction Methods Push U.S. to Forefront of Global Energy Power

A great piece at Der Spiegel, "Full Throttle Ahead: U.S. Tips Global Power Scales with Fracking":

The United States is sitting on massive natural gas and oil reserves that have the potential to shift the geopolitical balance in its favor. Worries are increasing in Russia and the Arab states of waning influence and falling market prices.

Williston, North Dakota, is a bleak little city in the vast American prairie. It's dusty in the summer and frigid in the winter. Moose hunting is one of the few sources of entertainment. But despite its drawbacks, Williston has seen its population more than double within a short period of time.

The city is so overcrowded that new arrivals often have no place to stay but in their motor homes, which, at monthly parking fees of $1,200 (€880), isn't exactly inexpensive. And more people continue to arrive in this nondescript little town.
The reason for the influx is simple: Geologists have discovered a layer of shale saturated with natural gas and oil deep beneath the city. The Bakken formation, spanning thousands of square kilometers, has become synonymous with an American economic miracle that the country hasn't experienced since the oil rush almost 100 years ago.

North Dakota now has virtual full employment, and the state budget showed an estimated surplus of $1.6 billion in 2012. Truck drivers in the state make $100,000 a year, while the strippers being brought in from Las Vegas rake in more than $1,000 a night. President Barack Obama calls the discovery of Bakken and similar shale gas formations in Texas, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Louisiana and Utah a "stroke of luck," saying: "We have a hundred years' worth of energy right beneath our feet."

A Vital Nerve

The future of the American energy supply was looking grim until recently. With its own resources waning, the United States was dependent on Arab oil sheiks and erratic dictators. Rising energy costs were hitting a vital nerve in the country's industrial sector.

But the situation has fundamentally changed since American drilling experts began using a method called "fracking," with which oil and gas molecules can be extracted from dense shale rock formations. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that the United States will replace Russia as the world's largest producer of natural gas in only two years. The Americans could also become the world's top petroleum producers by 2017.

Low natural gas prices -- the price of natural gas in the United States is only a quarter of what it was in 2008 -- could fuel a comeback of American industry. "Low-cost natural gas is the elixir, the sweetness, the juice, the Viagra," an American industry representative told the business magazine Fortune. "What it's doing is changing the US back into the industrial power of the day."
The government estimates that the boom could generate 600,000 new jobs, and some experts even believe that up to 3 million new jobs could be created in the coming years. "My administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy," Obama said during his most recent State of the Union address.

Shifting Calculations

The gas revolution is changing the political balance of power all over the world. Americans and Russians have waged wars, and they have propped up or toppled regimes, over oil and gas. When the flows of energy change, the strategic and military calculations of the major powers do as well.

It is still unclear who the winners and losers will be. The Chinese and the Argentines also have enormous shale gas reserves. Experts believe that Poland, France and Germany have significant resources, although no one knows exactly how significant. Outside the United States, extraction is still in its infancy.

The outlines of a changed world order are already emerging in the simulations of geo-strategists. They show that the United States will benefit the most from the development of shale gas and oil resources. A study by Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the BND, concludes that Washington's discretionary power in foreign and security policy will increase substantially as a result of the country's new energy riches...

Russia's hardest hit, it turns out.

Keep reading at the link.

Best Super Bowl Ads 2013

I was pretty diligent about staying in front of the TV for the big-money advertisements.

Chrysler's "Farmer" ad really captured the hearts of a lot of folks on Twitter, and WSJ has more, "Chrysler Ram Truck Super Bowl Ad Aims at Consumers’ Inner ‘Farmer’ (Video)."

I like this KIA spot:

And see Adweek, "Search No More: All the 2013 Super Bowl Spots in One Place."

More at NYT, "Super Bowl Ads Speak to a Generation. But Which One?"

Beijing's Cyber Attacks Show World True Nature of Chinese Regime

At the Wall Street Journal, "Barbarians at the Digital Gate":

On a visit to our offices last year, a U.S. lawmaker with knowledge of intelligence affairs explained that, when it comes to cyber-espionage, there are only two kinds of American companies these days: Those that have been hacked, and those that don't know they've been hacked.

So it comes as no great surprise to learn that The Wall Street Journal has also been hacked.

Specifically, the email accounts of under two dozen Journal editors, reporters and editorial writers have been hacked for months and maybe longer by the Chinese government. The hackers entered our systems and sought to monitor our China coverage. We identified the hacking last year and have taken steps to prevent it. The attack parallels similar Chinese infiltration of the New York Times, which believes the cyber-espionage originated with a Chinese military unit, as well as a hacking attempt last year against Bloomberg News.

We'll go out on a limb and assume these hacks stem from a common source. As for the Chinese motive, our friends at the Times think it was in connection to the paper's investigation of the fabulous family wealth of the former premier, "Grandpa" Wen Jiabao. Bloomberg believes it was hacked after publishing an exposé of the riches of the relatives of Xi Jinping, then China's vice president and now the general secretary.

For our part, we can think of any number of Journal stories that have embarrassed the Chinese regime, especially in connection to last year's downfall of Chongqing party chief Bo Xilai. The Chinese government has frequently objected to and censored these pages for writing about Chinese corruption or publishing the work of Chinese dissidents, Tibetan and Uighur freedom fighters, and others who have courageously stood up to Beijing's bullying. We'll take it as a badge of journalistic honor that some of our editorial-page writers were among those hacked.

Lots more at the link.

Ravens Beat 49ers in Bizarre 'Lights Out' Super Bowl XLVII

I thought San Francisco was going to do it, but alas, it wasn't to be.

At Sports Illustrated, "Baltimore Ravens top San Francisco 49ers in Super Bowl XLVII."

And here's NYT's live blog, "Live Coverage: Super Bowl XLVII."

Added: NYT's full report is here, "Power Fails and 49ers Surge, but Ravens Win."

Power Outage During Super Bowl XLVII

That outage caused some game-changing momentum on the field, and if San Francisco comes back all the way to win it, we'll be hearing a lot more about it.

For now though, check Twitchy, "NFL probes cause of power outage, snark and conspiracy theories abound."

Alicia Keys Sings Longest National Anthem Ever?

USA Today is on the case, "Was Alicia Keys' national anthem the longest in history?"

And on Twitter:

Was Alicia Keys' national anthem the longest ever? usat.ly/11yWEH1 // twitter.com/aliciakeys/sta…
— USA TODAY Sports (@USATODAYsports) February 4, 2013

Longest in the history of the Super Bowl, it turns out.

Super Bowl XLVII: 49ers-Ravens QB Matchup is Run vs. Gun

From Sam Farmer, at the Los Angeles Times:

Sprinter's speed makes San Francisco's Colin Kaepernick truly dangerous. Baltimore's Joe Flacco is a classic drop-back passer. Which philosophy will prevail?

NEW ORLEANS — Much of the talk leading up to Super Bowl XLVII was about the coaching Harbaugh brothers, San Francisco's Jim and Baltimore's John, and the historic spin they put on the NFL's splashiest showcase.

But the outcome Sunday hinges on the unrelated brothers in arms, Colin Kaepernick of the 49ers and Joe Flacco of the Ravens, quarterbacks of contrasting styles, and how they handle the biggest game of their lives.

Kaepernick is a sculpted, 6-foot-4 nightmare for a defense, a second-year player with the speed of a sprinter and a pitcher's right arm. He's the quintessential dual threat, whose post-snap intentions are as hard to read as the tattooed Bible verses that run up and down his biceps.

The 6-foot-6 Flacco is only 28, and he's already an old-school throwback. Although he's far from immobile, he's much more of a drop-back pocket dweller than his Super Bowl counterpart. And lately, he's on fire. In Baltimore's path back to the sport's marquee game — victories over Indianapolis, Denver and New England — Flacco has eight touchdown passes with no interceptions.

The Ravens, with Flacco at quarterback, have gotten to the playoffs each of the last five seasons, a feat no other NFL team has accomplished. What's more, Baltimore has won at least one postseason game in each of those years.

In this copycat league, the quarterback who hoists the Lombardi Trophy at the end of this game will be Exhibit A for two opposing football philosophies.

Does this league belong to the runners, or the gunners?

Steve Young, the last quarterback to win a Super Bowl for the 49ers, and a Hall of Fame player who wasn't shy about tucking the football and running, believes we're witnessing a fascinating historical hiccup. By his thinking, the Kaepernick-style quarterbacks — players such as Seattle's Russell Wilson, Washington's Robert Griffin III and Carolina's Cam Newton — eventually will log more pocket time than a stingy man's wallet.

"Sooner or later, you get straightened up to the fact that to deliver championship football, it's from the pocket," said Young, now an ESPN analyst, who capped the 1994 season by securing a fifth championship for the 49ers.

"I might be proven wrong, but I think we have a special gap in time. There's something unique happening, and I think it will close. Will it completely close? No. And I think that young, mobile quarterbacks will become more valuable now rather than in the past, and maybe become the prototype."

But, Young said, the ability to shred a defense with the run "can never be the full measure of what quarterbacks need to do in the league." That's why players such as Kaepernick, Wilson and Griffin — all of whom can pass, all of whom made the playoffs this season — are offensive cornerstones, and the one-dimensional Tim Tebow is not.

Flacco, whose own father describes him as "dull," is one of the more exciting passers in football because he throws the risky passes, the ones that tickle the fingertips of defenders but ultimately rest in the hands of his receivers. From his bombs to his back-shoulder throws to his darts he could wedge through a mouse hole, Flacco takes chances.

In three games this postseason, Flacco has completed 54.8% of his throws for 853 yards and a lofty overall passer rating of 114.7. He has thrown 162 passes without an interception, his last coming in a Dec. 16 loss to Denver. He's not a dink-and-dunk quarterback; he's completed 15 passes of 20 or more yards in the three playoff games.

"He's a guy that was always in constant control," said K.C. Keeler, Flacco's college coach at Delaware. "And I asked him one day, 'OK, I'm going to talk to a youth group someday about you, what made you great. What makes you great?' And he goes, 'I'm not afraid to fail. It's that simple. I'm going to prepare as hard as I can, and I'm going to go out there, and it doesn't matter what the arena is, I'm just going to go play. And if we're successful, great. And if we're not? I'll live with it. But I'm not afraid to fail.'

More at that top link.

First Pull-Ups, Then Combat, Marines Say

More on women in combat, at the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — How many pull-ups does it take to make a female Marine?

The answer, starting next January: a minimum of three, the same number required of male Marines.

If anyone thought the military’s decision to allow women into combat units would lead to exceptions for women when it came to fitness and physical strength, this is one service’s “gender neutral” answer — or at least part of the answer.

Like the men, women will have to perform the exercises on the Marine Corps’s annual physical fitness test as “dead hang” pull-ups, without the benefit of the momentum from a lower-body swing. Like the men, women can do the pull-ups underhanded or overhanded, as long as their chins break the plane of the bar.

The new requirement replaces the old “flexed arm hang” for women, in place since 1975, which had to be held for a minimum of 15 seconds.

“The physical requirements of female Marines, commensurate with their roles, have increased greatly since 1975,” said Col. Sean D. Gibson, a spokesman for the Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va. “The pull-up is a better test of muscular strength.”

But the new Marine Corps regulations are just part of a sweeping re-examination of fitness standards in the military that Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s announcement last week ending the ban on women in combat only accelerated.

As it stands now, service members face a gantlet of overlapping fitness tests throughout the vast sprawl of the American military, from initial ones that recruits have to pass to annual fitness (and weight) tests to specific physical requirements that must be met for combat jobs.

The Pentagon says it will not lower standards for women, but is nonetheless reviewing the requirements for hundreds of what are called military occupational specialties to see if they actually match up with the demands of each job.

Some combat jobs that might open to women may require them to meet only specific requirements rather than a wide range of fitness standards.

“We’re going to ensure that our tank crewmen are fully capable of removing 50-pound projectiles from the ammunition rack and loading them into the main gun in a sustained manner in a combat situation,” said George Wright, an Army spokesman.

Only three pull-ups? For a man!!! Gawd, we've got a bunch of weenies signing up. It should be ten pull-ups required. If it takes some training to get to the level of fitness, so be it.

More at that top link. The Army's not changing its "sex-adjusted" standards, so we'll see how this all works out.

RELATED: ICYMI, Phyllis Schlafly, at Human Events, "Panetta's Cowardly Decision."

Plus, from the letters to the editor at the Wall Street Journal, "Battle Over Women in Combat Has Been Won, or Lost."

NRA's Wayne LaPierre on Fox News Sunday: 'I don't think you can trust these people...'

He's putting mildly.

Gateway Pundit has the video, "NRA Chief LaPierre: You Can’t Trust This White House (Video)."

Also at The Hill, "NRA chief: Public cannot ‘trust’ White House on gun control." (At Memeorandum.)

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies."

Also at Reaganite Republican, "Reaganite's Sundy Funnies," and Jill Stanek's, "Stanek Sunday funnies 2-3-13."

More at Legal Insurrection, "Branco Cartoon – He the People."

CARTOON CREDIT: William Warren.

Obama Skeet Shooting Photoshops LOL!

Folks are already moving on to the second and third stages of presidential mockery, but I'm behind on blogging, so WTF?

At Twitchy, "Hilarity ensues as Twitter users caption and Photoshop Obama’s shooting photo."

Related bits here: "Media’s firearms experts confuse President Obama’s assault shotgun with rifle," and "White House pic: Obama goes shooting in his mom jeans ‘all the time’; White House sneers at ‘skeeters’."

Lots more at Twitchy.

Photoshop Credit: Stoaty Weasel.

And a bonus P'shop, via Wayward Okie on Twitter:

Drowned in a Stream of Prescriptions

My youngest son takes ADHD medication. My wife's still asleep, but this is one New York Times story she won't want to miss.

See, "Concerns About A.D.H.D. Practices and Amphetamine Addiction":

VIRGINIA BEACH — Every morning on her way to work, Kathy Fee holds her breath as she drives past the squat brick building that houses Dominion Psychiatric Associates.

It was there that her son, Richard, visited a doctor and received prescriptions for Adderall, an amphetamine-based medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. It was in the parking lot that she insisted to Richard that he did not have A.D.H.D., not as a child and not now as a 24-year-old college graduate, and that he was getting dangerously addicted to the medication. It was inside the building that her husband, Rick, implored Richard’s doctor to stop prescribing him Adderall, warning, “You’re going to kill him.”

It was where, after becoming violently delusional and spending a week in a psychiatric hospital in 2011, Richard met with his doctor and received prescriptions for 90 more days of Adderall. He hanged himself in his bedroom closet two weeks after they expired.

The story of Richard Fee, an athletic, personable college class president and aspiring medical student, highlights widespread failings in the system through which five million Americans take medication for A.D.H.D., doctors and other experts said.

Medications like Adderall can markedly improve the lives of children and others with the disorder. But the tunnel-like focus the medicines provide has led growing numbers of teenagers and young adults to fake symptoms to obtain steady prescriptions for highly addictive medications that carry serious psychological dangers. These efforts are facilitated by a segment of doctors who skip established diagnostic procedures, renew prescriptions reflexively and spend too little time with patients to accurately monitor side effects.

Richard Fee’s experience included it all. Conversations with friends and family members and a review of detailed medical records depict an intelligent and articulate young man lying to doctor after doctor, physicians issuing hasty diagnoses, and psychiatrists continuing to prescribe medication — even increasing dosages — despite evidence of his growing addiction and psychiatric breakdown.

Very few people who misuse stimulants devolve into psychotic or suicidal addicts. But even one of Richard’s own physicians, Dr. Charles Parker, characterized his case as a virtual textbook for ways that A.D.H.D. practices can fail patients, particularly young adults. “We have a significant travesty being done in this country with how the diagnosis is being made and the meds are being administered,” said Dr. Parker, a psychiatrist in Virginia Beach. “I think it’s an abnegation of trust. The public needs to say this is totally unacceptable and walk out.”

Our doctors have said that kids often outgrow their ADHD symptoms and that they sometimes go off their medications as they grow older. An interesting story, in any case.

Continue reading.

The Football Nanny State

At WSJ:

In his 2012 book "Concussions and Our Kids," Boston University neurosurgeon Robert Cantu left little mystery about his tome's intended target: The photo on the cover shows a pack of little kids playing tackle football. Inside its pages, a section heading says: "No tackle football before fourteen."

As the Super Bowl approaches Sunday, this point of view has become an increasingly trendy one. The talk in New Orleans this week, even by some players, has revolved around whether this collision-centric sport can survive without drastic change. And a growing number of people inside and outside the sport are pushing the debate toward children. "If I had a son," President Barack Obama told the New Republic this week, "I'd have to think long and hard before I let him play football."

Recent studies performed on former longtime NFL players have left no doubt that playing professional football can be hazardous to one's brain—and one's future quality of life. But when it comes to the question of whether the sport is dangerous for kids, it's not that the evidence is inconclusive—there's no evidence whatsoever.

The Mayo Clinic has performed two studies on football and kids. In 2002, after examining 915 football players from elementary and middle schools, it concluded: "the risk of injury in youth football does not appear greater than other recreational or competitive sports." Last year, the Mayo Clinic studied 438 men who played high-school football between 1946 and 1956, when headgear was less advanced. That study found no increased risk of dementia, Parkinson's disease or Lou Gehrig's disease among these players compared with their non-football-playing male classmates.

The lack of data isn't a secret: In his book about kids and concussions, Cantu, the neurosurgeon, acknowledged that there aren't enough data to say anything about the long-term effects of football on "these little ones."

When Baltimore Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco was asked about the issue this week, he took a different view than many other experts and observers. "They're a bunch of 50-pound or 140-pound kids," he said. "I don't know how much damage they're actually doing to each other."

Football's a rough sport. It's our gladiators. Take away the danger and it won't be the same. Better helmets and stuff? Sure. Rules against above the shoulder tackles and all that? No doubt. But if the left's pussies turn the NFL into a professional flag football freak show, we're doomed.

Maniac Dude Holds Knife to His Throat at Buckingham Palace, Gets Tasered Like a Mofo

At BCF, "Islamic or Crazy? - You Decide!"

And at London's Daily Mail, "Shocking footage shows man holding six-inch knife to his throat before being tasered by police as he ran towards them wielding two blades during Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace."

Visiting Temecula

We all headed out to Temecula yesterday, to pick up my oldest son who was spending Friday and Saturday visiting with dear friends. We had dinner last night at Red Robin's, at the Promenade Mall in town there.

That's my 22 ounce Sam Adams next to my wife's iced tea:

Here's yours truly enjoying the ambiance:

This is Luke, 7-months-old, the newest member of their family:

This is my youngest son, now 11-years-old, holding Luke:

After dinner my oldest son, now 17-years-old, went cruising around the mall with our friends' daughter. We found them across the way from the Edwards 15 theater:

We enjoyed spending time with little Luke, especially. He's a sweet boy and is now rolling over very well and just starting to crawl. I tweeted about babies earlier. The more time one spends with children the more visceral one's opposition to abortion becomes.

Vote on Homosexual Marriage Rips Britain's Tories

Britain's ruling conservative party is trying to approve a vote on homosexual marriage, with some difficulty, it turns out.

At Telegraph UK, "Conservative party ripped apart by gay marriage vote":

The full scale of this week’s revolt by Conservative MPs against David Cameron’s plans to introduce same-sex marriage became clear on Saturday.

The Sunday Telegraph has established that around 180 Conservative MPs, most notably including six whips and up to four members of the Cabinet, are ready to defy the Prime Minister’s plan to legalise gay weddings.

Meanwhile, 25 chairmen or former chairmen of Conservative party associations across the country have signed a letter to Mr Cameron warning that the policy will cause “significant damage” to the Tories’ 2015 general election campaign.

One chairman, who has quit over the issue, said “this is a policy dreamt up in Notting Hill”, while a serving chairman said it had angered the grassroots more than Europe.

The vote on Tuesday is the first parliamentary vote on the gay marriage legislation and a test for the Prime Minister. However Downing Street now expects that only around 120 of Mr Cameron’s MPs will vote in favour of legalising homosexual unions. This leaves around 180 Conservative members likely to abstain or vote against. They include:

Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, and David Jones, the Welsh Secretary, both expected to vote against.

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, who will either vote against or abstain, while Iain Duncan Smith is expected to abstain, although a source close to the welfare secretary suggested that it was still possible he may side with the Government.

At least half of the Tories’ 12-man whips’ office, relied on by Mr Cameron to enforce party discipline. They are Stephen Crabb, David Evennett, Robert Goodwill, Mark Lancaster, Nicky Morgan and John Randall.

Senior party members including Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Liam Fox and Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the Commons Treasury Committee, who will not back the Bill.

Junior ministers including Mike Penning, John Hayes and Jeremy Wright. Mr Wright, a justice minister, said: “I will listen to the arguments in favour on Tuesday, but I am not persuaded by what I have heard so far.”

The Prime Minister has spoken passionately about allowing same-sex couples to marry, suggesting that such unions are in keeping with Conservative values.

Maria Miller, the Culture Secretary, who is overseeing the Bill, has said that the proposed legislation includes a “quadruple lock” to ensure that no church or other religious institution is forced to marry a same-sex couple. And last night Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary – a close ally of the Prime Minister – issued a strongly-worded defence of the plan.

He said: “Religious freedom is not just for heterosexuals – we should not deny anyone the right to make a lifelong commitment to another person in front of God if that is what they believe and that is what their church allows.”

Sounds like homo marriage not going over too well, eh mate?

Ashley Greene Steps Out for Super Bowl Parties in New Orleans

Seen here with Anna Faris, via London's Daily Mail, "Ashley Greene shimmers in gold while Anna Faris keeps to basic black as they gear up for the Super Bowl."

PREVIOUSLY: "Smokin' Ashley Greene at Egotastic!"

Gas Prices Back Up Over $4.00 a Gallon

The Wall Street Journal reports that the economy's doing surprisingly well, and that's for sure, considering how the White House is doing everything it can to retard the recovery. See, "Economy Drives Market Rally: Jobs Report Propels Dow to Five-Year High as Earnings, Fed Policies Fuel Investor Confidence."

And also at IBD, "GDP Decline Masks Strengthening Consumers, Business."

Gritty Reality of Housing Projects in Memphis, Tennessee

I've long argued that President Obama is indifferent to the plight of inner city blacks. We haven't had an advocate for the poor in Washington, a genuine policy-expert advocate, since Jack Kemp was Bush 41's Secretary of Housing and Urban development --- just over 20 years ago. Kemp saw personal responsibility and market dynamism as keys to lifting the poor out of poverty, especially blacks. He made home ownership a priority and moved to privatize the nation's stock of public housing, distributing welfare populations outside of crime-riddled urban areas and encouraging work. There were some successes, but that's the kind of policy campaign that takes decades to effect.

In any case, see London's Daily Mail, "The Memphis Obama didn't see: Student who introduced the President at graduation reveals gritty reality of the projects where he grew up plagued by drug addicts, prostitutes and poverty."