Obama's Apology Tour, Sub-Saharan (Black) African Edition

President Obama's tour of Sub-Sarahan Africa (Black Africa) is receiving mainstream analysis as signifying a historic opportunity for the United States to address Africa's hardest problems. Obama, a black American, gains extra credibility for his family ties to Kenya and his personal knowledge of the region's history. As it turns out, though, Obama's choice of Ghana as a presidential backdrop has been poorly received in some quarters. The selection of Ghana could be a missed chance to showcase the continent's extremism, poverty, and health crises.

From Peter Wallsten, at the Los Angeles Times, "Obama in Africa: A Unique Presidential Visit." Wallsten argues that the president sees Ghana as a model democracy, representing a developmental path worth emulation for the larger conflict ridden society, but the administration's critics aren't pleased:

They cite the brief, in-and-out nature of his visit today to Ghana, and what they say is a slow-to-form policy toward troubled zones such as Somalia, Zimbabwe and Sudan.

The White House chose Ghana because it is an example of a successful African democracy. And Obama's defenders say the visit is one of several moves that emphasize the seriousness of his policy.

But critics see the West African countryas an overly simple backdrop. They hoped that Obama, based on his background and the depth of knowledge and concern he showed during an Africa tour as a senator in 2006, would dive headlong into vexing questions of extremism, poverty, AIDS and corruption in many parts of Africa.

Nicole Lee, executive director of TransAfrica Forum, a leading advocacy group, said there has been an "absolute passivity" in White House work so far on Africa's hardest problems.

"There was an assumption that this president, because of who he is, would lead us to a new policy," Lee said.

Obama spoke to Ghana's parliament in Accra. The New York Times has the report, "In Ghana, Obama Preaches Tough Love." In his address, the president spoke out against the region's wars, saying "These conflicts are a millstone around Africa's neck."

But the selection of Ghana holds a deeper significance: The larger reality is that Ghana served as the president's latest stop on his global apology tour. The president took his family to Cape Coast Castle on the West African coast. The visit at Cape Coast, a chief 17th-century headquarters for the European gold and slave trades, gave Obama another chance to mouth his anti-American apologism. The Hill captures the significance, "Obama Says Slave Prison Represents Sadness and Hope":

In somber remarks, President Obama said visiting a slave trading outpost in Ghana brought him both sadness and hope.

Obama remarks came after a tour of the Cape Coast Castle, which sits on Ghana's coastline with the Atlantic Ocean. The castle is almost 500 years old and served as a slave trading outpost for European nations.

The first African American president said he felt two emotions as he took the tour.

"As African Americans, there is a special sense that on the one hand, this place was a place of profound sadness," Obama said....

Obama also drew a parallel between the prison and Buchenwald, the Nazi concentration camp he visited in early June, because "it reminds of us of the capacity of human beings to commit great evil."

Obama spoke of the African American diaspora and the "portal" through which slaves were shipped around the globe.

In the tour, Obama saw the dark dungeons in the castle where men and woman slaves were held. When slaves were purchased, they were processed and passed through a "door of no return" when they boarded slave ships.

Obama said it was an "extraordinary tour" and, in particular, noted that right above the dungeon where male captives were held was a church.

"That reminds us that sometimes we can tolerate and stand by great evil even as we think we are doing good," Obama said.

Obama's words in Africa echo his comments on earlier legs of his world apology tour. See also, The Swamp, "Obama's African journey: 'Promise'."

And earlier from the world apology tour:

* "Barack Obama’s European Apology Tour."

* "The Obama Doctrine: Europe 1, America 0."

* "Rainbows and Unicorns and a World Without the J-Word."

* "The Apology Tour Continues in Latin America ."

Nuclear Realism: 'We Use Nuclear Weapons Every Day...'

From the Wall Street Journal, interview with former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, "Why We Don't Want a Nuclear-Free World":

"Nuclear weapons are used every day." So says former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, speaking last month at his office in a wooded enclave of Maclean, Va. It's a serene setting for Doomsday talk, and Mr. Schlesinger's matter-of-fact tone belies the enormity of the concepts he's explaining -- concepts that were seemingly ignored in this week's Moscow summit between Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev.

We use nuclear weapons every day, Mr. Schlesinger goes on to explain, "to deter our potential foes and provide reassurance to the allies to whom we offer protection."

Mr. Obama likes to talk about his vision of a nuclear-free world, and in Moscow he and Mr. Medvedev signed an agreement setting targets for sweeping reductions in the world's largest nuclear arsenals. Reflecting on the hour I spent with Mr. Schlesinger, I can't help but think: Do we really want to do this?

For nuclear strategists, Mr. Schlesinger is Yoda, the master of their universe. In addition to being a former defense secretary (Nixon and Ford), he is a former energy secretary (Carter) and former director of central intelligence (Nixon). He has been studying the U.S. nuclear posture since the early 1960s, when he was at the RAND Corporation, a California think tank that often does research for the U.S. government. He's the expert whom Defense Secretary Robert Gates called on last year to lead an investigation into the Air Force's mishandling of nuclear weapons after nuclear-armed cruise missiles were mistakenly flown across the country on a B-52 and nuclear fuses were accidently shipped to Taiwan. Most recently, he's vice chairman of a bipartisan congressional commission that in May issued an urgent warning about the need to maintain a strong U.S. deterrent.

But above all, Mr. Schlesinger is a nuclear realist. Are we heading toward a nuclear-free world anytime soon? He shoots back a one-word answer: "No." I keep silent, hoping he will go on. "We will need a strong deterrent," he finally says, "and that is measured at least in decades -- in my judgment, in fact, more or less in perpetuity. The notion that we can abolish nuclear weapons reflects on a combination of American utopianism and American parochialism. . . . It's like the [1929] Kellogg-Briand Pact renouncing war as an instrument of national policy . . . . It's not based upon an understanding of reality."

In other words: Go ahead and wish for a nuclear-free world, but pray that you don't get what you wish for. A world without nukes would be even more dangerous than a world with them, Mr. Schlesinger argues.

Read the whole thing (here). Then, compare Mr. Schleslinger's comments to my essay from the other day, "Obama U.S.-Russia Nuke Partnership Belies 'Realist' Foreign Policy Creds." Speaking of President Obama's recent address in Moscow, I said:

In both words and tone, the president's speech evinces the same Wilsonianism that led to the disastrous institutional paralysis of the interwar era. It is the same kind of happy talk that we might find in the text of the Kellogg-Briand Pact.

1979, The Most Important Year

I graduated from high school thirty years ago.

Hence, the year 1979 always seems to have a ring to it. Foreign Policy's got an interesting new article on the anniversary, "1979: The Great Backlash: What do Ayatollah Khomeini, Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, and Deng Xiaoping All Have in Common?":

If you want to understand the surge of politicized religion, post-communist globalization, and laissez-faire economics that has defined our modern era, forget 1968. Forget even 1989. It's 1979 that's the most important year of all. A remarkable chapter in international affairs—and intellectual history—began that year, and it had the strangest group of authors imaginable.

It was in 1979 that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seized power in Iran and showed once and for all that "Islamic revolution" is not an oxymoron. The Soviet Union made the fateful decision to invade the poor backwater of Afghanistan, sparking a different kind of Islamic uprising that hammered the first nails into the coffin of the communist empire. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher blazed a conservative resurgence in Britain that not only changed the rules of politics in the West but also shaped the subsequent age of market-driven globalization. Pope John Paul II's first pilgrimage to his Polish homeland in the summer of 1979 emboldened freedom-loving peoples throughout Eastern and Central Europe and set events in motion that would culminate in the nonviolent revolutions of 1989. And throughout 1979, a stoic and unlikely visionary named Deng Xiaoping quietly took the first steps to prepare communist China for its long march toward the age of markets.

Check the link for more.

See also, John O'Sullivan, "Rebel With a Cause: Margaret Thatcher, Revolutionary" (via Memeorandum): " She matters because she is one of the very few strong leaders dedicated to freedom. And as long as freedom is a political issue, Margaret Thatcher will continue to matter."

Unmanned Fighter Aircraft (An Update)

Jason at The Western Experience has an essay on air power technology and the future of war, "The Future of America’s Military Power?":

Our struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan show beyond any comparison the need for a large, well trained and well equipped army. Newer unmanned aircraft can and will do the job more efficiently at lower costs, both economically and in terms of human capital, where it is possible. But, there will always be the highest demand for well trained men asked to do an impossible job in the name of national defense. Just as it has always been since the primitive age of Achilles day. To the Special Forces operator on a mountain in Afghanistan trained to speak two languages and make head shots 1,000 meters away . And to think otherwise is pure fantasy.

Check the link for the full essay. Jason's piece builds on my piece from last night, Unmanned Fighter Aircraft (And the Left)."

See also the Washington Post, "High-Priced F-22 Fighter Has Major Shortcomings" (via Memeorandum).

Dems Talking Up New Stimulus Package

There's a lot of chatter suggesting the Obama administration and congressional Democrats will seek a second economic stimulus package. Paul Krugman was beating the drums today in his column, "The Stimulus Trap." But James Taranto skewered the idea, "The Krugman Fix: The Stimulus Isn't Working! Must . . . Have . . . More . . . "

Mona Charen also hammered the Dems, "Help: They Are Talking About a New Stimulus!":

Obama economic adviser Laura Tyson has suggested that the U.S. should consider a new economic stimulus package because the $787 billion bill enacted in February was "a bit too small." Right. That $787 billion came just months after the Bush stimulus of $150 billion (how quaint it seems in retrospect), the $700 billion TARP program, the $60 billion auto bailout, and a $3.6 trillion budget for the next fiscal year among other spending orgies. President Obama has declined to rule out another gargantuan transfer payment from the future to the present. Other Democrats, Roll Call suggests, are less enthusiastic. "Bailout fatigue has settled in -- and it would be very difficult to get such a bill through the Senate," an aide told the paper.

If this massive hemorrhage of tax dollars doesn't provoke second thoughts, people have forgotten how to think. Though the Obama administration insisted that the stimulus was too urgent to permit debate, too pressing to permit time to read the legislation, only a fraction of the money allocated has actually been pushed out the door five months on. And while Americans were encouraged to conceive of the stimulus as a latter day Civilian Conservation Corps, with platoons of shovel-shouldering men marching out to repair roads, build bridges, and sing catchy folk songs, the reality is otherwise.

Ninety billion dollars of the stimulus funds are allocated not to infrastructure but to increasing the federal matching portion of state Medicaid expenses through Jan. 1, 2011. As President Obama's OMB Director Peter Orszag acknowledged in congressional testimony last year, "if federal assistance merely provides fiscal relief by paying for spending that would have occurred anyway and does not affect state and local revenues in the short run, then it provides no economic stimulus." Transferring check writing from Trenton and Sacramento and Augusta to Washington, D.C., may ease state budget crises, but by no stretch can this be considered a jobs program or anything but a trifling stimulation of economic activity. Besides, it rewards states that have failed to budget prudently and punishes those who have shown self-restraint. Will those states, most disastrously California, that got themselves into a fiscal mess by failing to control spending, be more or less likely in the future to act responsibly now that they are receiving a federal subvention?

More at the link.

And if that's not enough, the administration may also seek existing TARP funds to bailout small businesses. See, the Washinton Post, "Administration Considers Bailout Funds for Small Businesses" (via Memeorandum).

Image Credit: The People's Cube, "Enlarge Your Economy in Just Days with Stimulus Package."

House Dems Seek Tax Hikes on Wealthy to Pay for Health Reform

From the New York Times, "House Democrats Plan to Tax the Wealthy to Pay for Health Care Reform":

To pay for a sweeping overhaul of the health care system, House Democrats will propose a surtax on individuals earning $280,000 and up and couples earning more than $350,000, the chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee said on Friday.

In all, the proposal is projected to generate roughly $550 billion over 10 years, which would cover about half of the estimated cost of the $1-trillion-plus health care legislation. The balance of the cost is expected to be covered by lower government spending on Medicare and other savings in the health care system.

But it remains unclear if the Senate would approve such an across-the-board income tax on the wealthy. Although some Democrats said they would gladly vote to tax the rich to pay for an improved health care system, most if not all Republicans and some centrist Democrats seem to be opposed.

Plus, see The Hill, "House to Target Wealthy to Pay for Healthcare,"and "Band of House Centrists Offers Support for ‘Robust’ Public Health Insurance Plan" (via Memeorandum).

Also, from ABC News, "While the President's Away, Health Care will Stray?"

The big liberal blogs are all over this story (see Firedoglake, TPMDC). The only conservative is Karl at Hot Air, "Obamacare Faces a Backlash from the Center-Left."

Interesting exit question: Why are Democrats proposing TAX INCREASES during a recession? (And don't forget the hypocrisy; Barack Obama hammered John McCain during the campaign for his plan's proposal to tax employee health benefits, "Taxing Employee Benefits to Pay for Obama Health Care Plan Still an Option.")

More at Memeorandum.

Public Consistently Opposes Same-Sex Marriage

Pew Research has published a new report, "The Gay Marriage Debate: Where It Stands":

Most supporters of same-sex marriage contend that gay and lesbian couples should be treated no differently than their heterosexual counterparts and that they should be able to marry like anyone else. Beyond wanting to uphold the legal principles of nondiscrimination and equal treatment, supporters say there are very practical reasons behind the fight for marriage equity. They point out, for instance, that homosexual couples who have been together for years often find themselves without the basic rights and privileges that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual couples who legally marry -- from the sharing of health and pension benefits to hospital visitation rights.

Most social conservatives and others who oppose same-sex marriage argue that marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of a healthy society because it leads to stable families and, ultimately, to children who grow up to be productive adults. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed, they contend, will radically redefine marriage and further weaken it at a time when the institution is already in serious trouble as a result of high divorce rates and a significant number of out-of-wedlock births. Moreover, many predict that giving gay couples the right to marry will ultimately lead to granting people in polygamous and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry as well.

See also Pew's primary report, "Public Opinion on Gay Marriage: Opponents Consistently Outnumber Supporters."

I'm struck by that tailing uptick of opposition to same-same marriage in the chart above. It's not large, but the 5 point increase of those opposed coincides with the extreme left-wing demonization and outing campaign following the passage of Proposition 8 last November. Diana West argued that the brutalization inflicted on supporters of the initiative was as "soul-grinding as something out of Soviet show trial history." And if we recall what's happened in the last 8 months, no state has voted by popular majority to define marriage as including two men or two women. It's just not how it's done. Meanwhile, the survey data show that Americans favor some kind of civil unions for same-sex partners. Gay marriage is not a civil right. Further as we can see, there is some bedrock of marriage traditionalism that transcends partisanship, race, and gender. And the reality is that the radical left has been intent to virtually crucify those not kowtowing to the nihilist agenda.

Interestingly, today's New York Times features the latest example of an enduring traditionalism that rises above the stereotypical categories of radical identity politics. It turns out that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference is looking to remove the Rev. Eric P. Lee, its Los Angeles chapter president. Rev. Lee is a gay marriage activist and thus out of step with not just the SCLC, but with the 70 percent of black voters in California who voted to preserve the historic conception of marriage last year. Responding to this, Darren Lenard Hutchinson, the black radical law professor at the American University, attacked the SCLC as a bigoted organization that has betrayed its "rich history of progressive advocacy."

Actually, the old-line civil rights groups have become key constituencies in the fight for the preservation of moral values in society today. Black folks know that it's a slap in the face to equate same-sex marriage rights to the horrors blacks faced through the battles of the freedom struggle. It's kind of sad to see a black professor, Darren Lenard Hutchinson, so deeply ignorant of that element of the civil rights legacy. For more on this, see Eugene Rivers and Kenneth Johnson, "Same-Sex Marriage: Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy."

More commentary at Memeorandum.

Graphic Credit: Pew Research.

The Hurt Locker is Cinematic Tour De Force

From the Washington Post, "'Locker' Serves as Iraq Tour De Force":

"War is a drug," writes Christopher Hedges in the epigraph that precedes "The Hurt Locker." Someone else described war as "interminable boredom punctuated by moments of stark terror." Director Kathryn Bigelow comprehends both those observations and conveys them in this captivating, completely immersive action thriller. "The Hurt Locker" just happens to be set in Iraq in 2004, but, like the best films, transcends time and place, and in the process attains something universal and enduring. "The Hurt Locker" is about Iraq in the same way that "Paths of Glory" was about World War I or "Full Metal Jacket" was about Vietnam -- which is to say, utterly and not at all. "The Hurt Locker" is a great movie, period.

Read the whole review, here. The official movie homepage is here.

Ed Morrissey reviewed the film a couple of weeks ago, "Film Review: The Hurt Locker." He notes a key point:

Unlike all of the other films about Iraq, The Hurt Locker does not take a position on the politics of the war; instead, it focuses on high-tension situations for an occupying force and the populace, and the dangers of fighting an insurgency. It almost gives a sense of suffocating paranoia, especially in the early sequences of the movie. In that sense, the audience can appreciate The Hurt Locker without the rancor of the war debate influencing it.

Go see it!

Obama, G-8 Make Little Headway on Global Warming

From the Los Angeles Times, "Despite Obama's Pledge, G-8 Makes Little Headway on Global Warming":

Addressing leaders of the world's most important economies early Thursday, President Obama wasted no time in proclaiming a new day for U.S. policy on climate change.

"I know that in the past, the United States has sometimes fallen short of meeting our responsibilities," he said. "So let me be clear: Those days are over."

But by the end of the day, when the Group of 8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy, wrapped up its deliberations on climate, Obama found himself stymied by many of the same roadblocks that plagued previous efforts to tackle global warming.

Leaders of the most developed nations again declined to commit themselves to any specific actions now or in the immediate future to curb the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming -- actions that would require increasing energy prices, raising taxes or imposing other unpopular economic measures on their people.

Instead, they embraced the high-sounding goal of reducing their own emissions by 80% and worldwide emissions by 50% by 2050 -- without pledging to take any specific steps to get there. China, India and other major developing countries, which pressed for action in the next decade by the G-8 countries, reacted by rejecting the package.

See also, "G-8 Climate-Change Agreement Falls Short." And, "Hysteria Is the Real threat, Not Global Warming."

Related: "Al Gore Sued by 30,000 Scientists for Fraud for Global Warming Scam."

Cartoon Credit: Americans for Limited Government and William Warren.

Left's Derangement Continues as Palin Attacked as 'Jewish-American Princess'

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is still dominating the news today. Matthew Continetti's getting some pushback for singing Palin's praises at the Weekly Standard.

But actuallly, the more the anti-Palin media circus rolls along, the more it looks like Governor Palin made the right decision to step down. Case in point is this post from TBogg at Firedoglake. He sure hasn't lost his genuine demon style, "Sarah Palin Is Now a Jewish-American Princess and We’re All Gonna Die."

It turns out he's picking up on "The Esther Syndrome" slur that's been making its way around the left's netroots, and the mainstream press. Apparently a Palin cross-bearer is the harbinger of end times. I guess there's a market for this stuff. Or you tell me, after reading TBogg:

So you should probably start doing all of those things that you've been putting off doing like going to Paris, finishing the libretto for Reservoir Dogs: The Musical, putting the laundry away, solving the Riemann hypothesis, and having sex with Jennifer Aniston because there isn't much time left.

I'd move that Aniston one up to maybe number two. The laundry can wait.

Pool Club Pres. Sorry for Jim Crow Policies; Meanwhile, Left Stays Mum on Duesler Bigotry, Hammers GOP's Audra Shay as 'Endorsing Racism'!

Democrat John Duesler, the President of North Philadelphia's Valley Swim Club, has apologized for his pool club's racist policies. According to the Philadelphia Enquirer:

The president of a suburban swim club at the center of a racial discrimination controversy said today safety factors - not racism - prompted the pool to rescind a contract with a Northeast Philadelphia day camp.

John Duesler also said he chose his words poorly in an earlier statement explaining why the the Valley Club was ending its arrangement with the predominantly black and Hispanic camp.

In that statement to NBC10, he said, "There is a lot of concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion ... the atmosphere of the club."

"This is a terrible misinterpretation of what I stand for. This is just wrong," Duesler said while standing with his wife Bernice at the pool's gate. "That was a terrible choice of words, I admit."

He said that what he meant to convey was the number of campers in the pool compared to the number of available lifeguards had created an unsafe environment.

Recall that John Duesler is a huge Obama backer. See, "Philly Pool Kids Booter Is Obama Fan." And Duesler's Obama blood-drive at BarackObama.com, "O Positive Blood Drive." See also, Moe Lane, "Yes, the President of the Valley Swim Club is a John G Duesler, Jr."

No word yet from yesterday's outraged leftists (see, pandagon.net, Jack & Jill Politics, Gawker, Unreported, and Alas, a blog). No doubt, the netroots racial investigators went mum once they found out Duesler was a Democrat!

Meanwhile, these folks continue to excoriate Republicans as bigots. See The Daily Beast, "The GOP's Young Hatemonger: Audra Shay, Accused of Endorsing Racism on Facebook, Is Favored to Become the Head of the Young Republicans Tomorrow."

Now that's a classic case study in the double-standards of the Democratic-left!

See also, Nice Deb, "More On The PA Swim Club Racial Incident."

Video Hat Tip: CBS News, "Pool to Minority Kids: You Can't Swim Here." Also reporting, NBC Philadelphia, "Swim Club Members: 'Nothing to Do With Race'."

What is a Paleoconservative?

The Classical Liberal is running a series on conservative ideology. Here's his latest installment, "Conservative: What is a Paleoconservative?"

Anyone who studies the history of the conservative movement, will quickly learn it's not a movement of ideological purity. Conservatives have always come in a variety of different flavors, and each flavor has had much at odds with each other from the start. In other words, the infighting that beltway-types claim to be a problem, has perhaps, been the movement's greatest strength!

Be sure the check out the whole post (it's fairly academic). The Classical Liberal names names, including the "prominent paleoconservative," Patrick Buchanan. Not mentioned is America-basher Daniel Larison. E.D. Kain seems to be taking up the paleocon banner as well. And don't miss the boys at Conservative Heritage Times.

These are the least pro-American of conservatives, folks often in bed with the fringes of both the radical left and reactionary right (see, "The Old Right/New Left/Neo-Nazi Alliance"). For my related commentary on this, see "Noxious Anti-Americanism and New Secessionist Theories." Also, "Patrick J. Buchanan and the Jews,," and "Ron Paul’s Real Politics: The Case of Daniel Larison."

Democrats Push to Brand Partisan Opponents as 'Hate Groups'

From the Washington Examiner, "Political Opposition Is Not a Hate Crime":

What's wrong with this picture? The federal government spends billions on homeland security, but apparently can't stop foreigners from illegally crossing the border or overstaying their visas. The Obama administration wants to bring violent terrorists captured overseas to the mainland and close the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Yet in the latest bizarre twist, legislation quietly making its way through Congress would give the White House power to categorize political opponents as hate groups and even send Americans to detention centers on abandoned military bases.

Rep. Alcee Hastings - the impeached Florida judge Nancy Pelosi tried to install as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee until her own party members rebelled - introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that gives Attorney General Eric Holder sole discretion to label groups that oppose government policy on guns, abortion, immigration, states' rights, or a host of other issues. In a June 25 speech on the House floor, Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ, blasted the idea: "This sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as 'extremists.'"

Whoa. I guess the discredited DHS “right-wing extremism” report wasn't enough for the Obamaniacs.

More from the Examiner: It turns out that Representative Hastings is also sponsoring additional legislation that proposes to "legally declare someone a 'domestic terrorist' and send them to a government-run camp." You know what? That buzz on the "FEMA concentration camps" doesn't quite sound so "baseless."

Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds.

Added: Ed Morrissey, "The Lock-Up-Your-Opponents Bills of 2009?" Also, Cold Fury, "Farewell, America; It Was Nice While It Lasted" (via Memeorandum).

Man Gored to Death in Pamplona's Running of the Bulls (VIDEO)

It's the fist time since 1995. See CNN, "Man Killed in Pamplona's Running of the Bulls."

Video Hat Tip: The New York Times, "Man Killed by Bull in Pamplona."

See also, Bloomberg, "Pamplona Bull Runner Gored to Death, 11 More Injured":

A 27-year-old Spanish man died after a fighting bull gored him in the neck at the Pamplona bull- running festival that was made famous by Ernest Hemingway and attracts thousands of foreigners each year.

The victim, Daniel Jimeno Romero from Alcala de Henares, a town near Madrid, was wounded in the neck and chest, the regional government of Navarra said in a statement on its Web site. Five of 11 people injured were released from the hospital. The others include a 61-year-old American man in intensive care, a 63-year-old American with less serious injuries, a 20-year-old Londoner with a thigh wound and a 24-year-old Argentine.

Obama's Stimulus Failure: 'There's Nothing We Would Have Done Differently...'

Here's an update to my previous post, "Obama's Stimulus Failure":

Hat Tip: All-American Blogger.

See also, Edward Lazear, "Do We Need a Second Stimulus? A More Troubling Question Is Why So Little Is Being Spent Fom the First."

If Sarah Palin Were President...

From William Jacobson, "If Palin Were President Now":

Sarah Palin's announcement that she will resign as Governor of Alaska has kicked off a new round of attacks on Palin's intelligence and integrity from pundits on both sides of the political spectrum. For most of the commentators, the resignation signals an end to Palin's chances at becoming President.

Few of the critics supported Palin before the resignation, so the resignation is not so much a revelation to them, as an opportunity to say "I told you so" and to take more cheap shots at Palin and her family. Among the non-political classes who form the base of Palin's support, I'm not sure the resignation makes much difference.

Despite the criticism of Palin and assertions that she is unfit for the presidency, it is hard to imagine that Palin could do any worse as President than Barack Obama is doing right now. For all Obama's smarts and syntax, he is driving this country off a cliff, with the pedal down to the floor while he reads the drivers' manual on how the brakes work.

If Palin were President, we would not have ...

Read the rest of the analysis here.

See also, Riehl World View, "Sarah Palin's Record of Accomplishment In Office."

And Villainous Company, "The Best and the Brightest: Obama, Palin, and the American Dream."

Plus, more award-winning journalism on Palin. At Anchorage Daily News, "Johnston Says Palin Had Eye On the Money":

Levi Johnston, the former fiance of Gov. Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol, on Thursday joined the crowd offering up potential reasons for Palin's decision to step down.

And, The Politico, "Levi Johnston: Sarah Palin Did It For the Money."

Somebody's doing it for the money, that's for sure.

Also, Mark Morford at the San Francisco Chronicle, "Don't Go, Sarah Palin! A Nation Turns its Lonely Eyes To Your Ditzy Insufferable Ramblings."

More at Memeorandum.

Obama's Stimulus Failure

Carol at No Sheeples Here! offers an analysis of the Obama administration's economic stimulus, "America Ensnared by the “Stimulus Trap”."

Carol hammers Paul Krugman's recent piece, "The Stimulus Trap," and adds this:

So far, on this president’s watch, we have witnessed the doubling of the national debt, the nationalization of the U.S. auto industry and a bailout in the billions to insurance giant AIG without any pre-conditions, a hell-bent fixation to nationalize the health care industry and the proposal of a cap and trade bill that would be the largest tax in the history of our nation. Dare I say the world?

More at the link.

Also, check out Rich Lowry, "The Stimulus — The Anatomy of a Failure."

And from the Wall Street Journal, "Few Economists Favor More Stimulus":

Most economists believe the U.S. doesn't need another round of stimulus now despite expectations of continued severe job losses.

Just eight of 51 economists in The Wall Street Journal's latest forecasting survey said more stimulus is necessary, suggesting an average of about $600 billion in additional spending. On average, the economists forecast an unemployment rate of at least 10% through next June, with a decline to 9.5% by December 2010.

See also, Michelle Malkin, "Spawn of the Spendulus."

More commentary at Memeorandum.

On Iran Protests, Leftist Academics Get Back to Business as Usual

From Cinnamon Stillwell, "Ahmadinejad's Academics":

What a difference a popular uprising makes.

It seems like just yesterday that the Middle East studies establishment was busy defending Iran’s theocratic regime and its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from the alleged predations of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy. Yet in the wake of the unrest in response to the stolen election, suddenly American academics have succumbed to intellectual honesty and moral clarity. Despite the best efforts of the Iranian regime to drum up conspiracy theories blaming the West for the uprising, the Iranians themselves have taken center stage.

Read the whole thing, here. The professors are already returning to the default anti-American mode ...

Unmanned Fighter Aircraft (And the Left)

Robert Farley and Matthew Yglesias are thrilled with the idea of eliminating manned warplanes from the next generation of technological warfare.

The shift away from manned-fighter technology is serious business. In an essay today, Lawrence Korb and Krisila Benson argue that should the Pentagon eventually terminate the F-22 Raptor, the loss of production will not degrade the U.S. strategic-industrial base, since "the Obama administration's fiscal 2010 budget includes 28 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters - planes better suited for air-to-ground combat."

And, regarding doctrinal shifts in technology and warfighting, Eliot Cohen argued some time back in his now classic article on the RMA:

The platform has become less important, while the quality of what it carries - sensors, munitions, and electronics of all kinds - has become critical ....

Furthermore, the nature of preemption itself may change. To the extent that information warfare, including the sabotage of computer systems, emerges as a new type of combat, the first blow may be covert, a precursor to more open and conventional hostilities. Such attacks--to which an information-dependent society like the United States is particularly vulnerable--could have many purposes: blinding, intimidating, diverting, or simply confusing an opponent. They could carry as well the threat of bringing war to a country's homeland and people, and thus even up the balance for countries that do not possess the conventional tools of long-range attack, such as missiles and bombers.

Given this kind of discussion of the military, technological, and political realities in the shift away from manned fighter aircraft you'd think that Robert Farley - who is an Assistant Professor at the University of Kentucky's Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce - would have something highly significant to say on the emergent nature of threat assessment and advanced airfighting capabilities. Instead we get this:

I don't think there's a next "next generation" of fighter aircraft. And in any case, it appears that the A-10 will remain the platform of choice for fighting the giant robots that undoubtedly will afflict us in the future...

If you click the link there, Farley directs us to the Toys-R-Us page for "Terminator Salvation Vehicle with Action Figure - A-10 Warthog." Here's the photo:

It's not like professional manufacturer images of the Warthog aren't availble. Check the A-10's product page at the Global Aircraft Organization, for example.

No, with Farley there's just no seriousness to diplomacy and military affairs (nor scholarship, for that matter; recall my earlier piece, "The Moral Abomination of Robert Farley").

Given that, it's no surprise that Matthew Yglesias runs with the Farley piece, approvingly, at his own blog. Just today Yglesias published a mind-boggling essay at the American Prospect, "Small Steps Toward a Nuke-Free World."

Mind you, this is not a joke.

Despite the widely understood interpretation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as designed practically exclusively to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, Yglesias argues that President Obama's preliminary U.S.-Russian nuclear agreement advances the cause of nuclear abolition:

... according to the "joint understanding" released Monday, the U.S. and Russia will commit to reducing nuclear arsenals from the current ceiling of 2,200 warheads to a range of 1,500 to 1,675 ....

The agreement serves Russia's interests well because, simply put, maintaining a large nuclear arsenal is expensive. For the United States, with our $13 trillion gross domestic product, the current nuclear posture is wasteful ....

At the same time, Obama gets to make real headway on his earlier promise to recommit the United States to the long-term goal of total nuclear disarmament. The objective, if met, would strongly advance America's interests ...

A policy of American nuclear disarmament will advance nothing of the kind. I argued against President Obama's disastrous nuclear diplomacy in two recent posts (here and here). The president's nuclear weapons policies are idealistic, if not unserious, and hold horrendous implications for American national security. In that respect, they have much in common with the policy analysis of Robert Farley and Matthew Yglesias.

The GOP and the 2010 Midterms

Track-a-'Crat gets the video hat tip, but check out Frank Donatelli, "2010 Will Be a GOP Year":

Since the beginning of the 20th century, the party not in control of the White House has gained seats in every off-year election after a president's first election except for two times (1934 and 2002). Off-year dynamics are different and by the time they roll around many of the themes dominant in the presidential election have faded. Most importantly, new presidents and their administrations almost always overreach. And Barack Obama and his Democratic Party are overreaching in a big way.

A great essay, at the link.

Related: Chris Cillizza, "The Most Important Number in Politics Today." ("45 - That's the percentage of voters who believe that President Obama lacks a 'clear plan for solving this country's problems' in a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.")