Full Metal Saturday: Anna Faris

The House Bunny's been on Cinemax lately (or Showtime, or Starz ... I can't remember; we get 'em all). It's a funny movie, but I'm seriously in love with Anna Faris. If she's as nice in person as she is in the film, well, God bless her! So, please enjoy this wonderful woman for this week's Full Metal Saturday.

As always, Smitty's got a fabulous roundup of "Rule 5" bloggers, "Fortunately, My Jaw Rebounded Admirably."

And TrogloPundit's been laying down some impressive rounds of linkage back to this blog, for example, "Man Killed Running the Bulls in Pamplona." But Troglo's got some hot Rule 5 action as well. See, "Hayden Panettiere Was the Unpopular Kid in School." The dude's really generous on the Full Metal Reach-Around principle, and if you send it, he will link.

See also, Pat in Shreveport, "Cold Beer Full Metal Jacket Saturday," and No Sheeples Here!, "Full Metal Jacket Reach-Around For Saturday, July 11, 2009."

At Generation Patriot we have, "Sunday Linkage Beyond Your Wildest Dreams!" Also, at The Daley Gator, "Kinky Linky Saturday Reach Around!." Not to be outdone, check The Classical Liberal, "Ali Larter presents Rule 5 Saturday!" And Chris Wysocki, "Rule 5 Weekend: the girls of LBI."

And for some good ole' conservative blogging, see PA Pundits International, "The Bankrupt Party of Porkulus."

And please don't forget some additional friends of American Power:

Blazing Cat Fur, Robert Belvedere, Sono Annoiato, The Astute Blogger, Chris Wysocki, The Daley Gator, Just One Minute, Dave's World, The Oklahoma Patriot, Right Wing Sparkle, Conservatism With Heart, Dr. Helen, Laura Elizabeth Morales, Charles G. Hill , Blueshelled, The Nose on Your Face, All-American Blogger, Paco Enterprises, Nice Deb, Becky Brindle, Fishersville Mike, Monique Stuart, No Sheeples Here!, Dana at CSPT, Glenn Reynolds, Obi’s Sister, Right Truth, Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels, Chicago Ray, Ace of Spades HQ, Natalie's Blog. Ann Althouse, Pirate's Cove, Diminished Expectations,The Conservatives Who Say F*ck, Joust The Facts, Panhandle Poet, Steven Givler, Moonbattery, Sweating Through the Fog, Three Beers Later, PA Pundits, Sister Toldjah, Duck of Minerva, Wolf Howling, Right Wing Nation, Right Wing Nuthouse, Melissa Clouthier, Steve Bartin's Newsalert, The Western Experience, Jammie Wearing Fool, ShrinkWrapped, The Average American, Paco Enterprises, Ken Davenport, Doug Ross Journal, The Blog Prof, Fausta's Blog, Clueless Emma, Obob's World, Seymour Nuts, Red State, Dr. Sanity, The Desert Glows Green, Not One Red Cent, Vinegar and Honey, Dan Collins, Scott Kingsmore, The Astute Bloggers, The BoBo Files, Grant Jones, Tapline, New Testament News, Wizbang, William Jacobson, Phyllis Chesler, Right View from the Left Coast, Generation Patriot, Macsmind, Flopping Aces, Edge's Conservative Movies, Stop the ACLU, Snooper's Report, Grandpa John's, Cranky Conservative, Jimmie Bise, Little Miss Attila, Moe Lane, Private Pigg, Pundit & Pundette, The Rhetorican, R.S. McCain, Saber Point, Stephen Kruiser, Suzanna Logan, GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnD, TrogloPundit, Villainous Company, PoliGazette, Prying 1, Paula in Israel, Pamela Geller, Vanessa's Blog, Pat's Daily Rants, Bob's Bar & Grill, Power Line, Melanie Morgan, Dave in Boca, Neo-Neocon, Right in a Left World, Flag Gazer, Stephen Green, The Tygrrrr Express, The News Factor, Israel Matsav, The Conservative Manifesto, Gates of Vienna, Sparks From the Anvil, Gateway Pundit, Political Pistachio, Liberty Pundit, Not One Red Cent, Right Truth, Dave's Notepad, The Red Hunter, Maggie's Farm, The Next Right, This Ain't Hell, Stop the ACLU, Politics and Critical Thinking, Riehl World View, Midnight Blue, Caroline Glick, The Griper, FouseSquawk, The Other McCain, Cheat Seeking Missiles, Roger Simon, Classical Values, Samantha Speaks, Grizzly Mama, The Capitol Tribune, The Patriot Room, The Real World, RADARSITE, Serr8d's Cutting Edge, Bloviating Zeppelin, Born Again Redneck The Educated Shoprat, St. Blogustine, Yid With Lid, Pondering Penguin, Betsy's Page, The Anchoress, Ace of Spades HQ, Right Wing Sparkle, Thunder Run, The Classic Liberal, Conservative Grapevine, Cassy Fiano, Jim Treacher, NetRightNation, Q and O, Urban Grounds, Ed Driscoll, Cold Fury, Michelle Malkin, Neptunus Lex, Neo-Neocon, The Liberty Papers, The Monkey Cage, Law and Order Teacher, Mike's America, AubreyJ, Dan Collins, Track-a-'Crat, The Jungle Hut, Wake Up America, Dan Riehl, Nikki's Blog, Big Girl Pants, Maggie's Notebook, Hummers & Cigarettes, Mark Goluskin, Jawa Report, The Skepticrats, Sarge Charlie, Thoughts With Attitude, Kim Priestap, Swedish Meatballs Confidential, Five Feet of Fury, Amy Proctor, Blonde Sagacity, Liberty Papers, TigerHawk, Point of a Gun, Right Wing News, And So it Goes in Shreveport, and Darleen Click.

Unmanned Fighter Aircraft: A Reader Responds to Robert Farley

Robert Farley sent out this tweet today:

I think Donald Douglas is trying to make me cry ... http://bit.ly/RXl5h

The link goes to my recent essay, "Unmanned Fighter Aircraft (And the Left)." That piece takes down Farley's childishness at his post, "F-35: The Last Manned Fighter Aircraft?"

I have received an e-mail from a reader just in time to add to the debate. I'm publishing it anonymously by permission (and note that I have nowhere this kind of operational expertise, just in case folks might think I'm pulling a Sullivan):

Hi Donald,

There's no doubt that we can do more than ever with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and that we should, when possible, continue in that direction. They are cheaper and can get the job done with considerably less risk to our personnel. (I say this having spent over 300 hours above hostile territory in an unarmed surveillance jet. We were once chased by an Iraqi MiG-25, which reached Mach 3 in its attempt to get within weapon range of us before our F-15s could get within range of it.)

The RMA crowd, however, unable as it is to distinguish between science fiction and the cold hard facts of warfare, is only acting true to form when they say we can do everything we need to do using UAVs. The fact is we can't, and we probably never will be able to.

The data infrastructure required to control UAVs and to benefit from the information gathered by their sensors is exactly the sort of center of gravity that will be targeted in the information warfare discussed by Eliot Cohen. He's exactly right when he says that this will be an opening salvo in what will rapidly become a conventional war against a nation with a less-technologically advanced military. There is a reason that China is so heavily invested in anti satellite technology, after all. A nation that can put a million men under arms will realize an advantage very quickly if they can reduce the struggle to a matter of who can field the greatest number of men with weapons in their hands.

And this is what war always comes down to, despite what the RMA folks would like us to believe. Our remote sensing abilities, our celebrated (justly so) capacity for finding, tracking, and destroying targets from afar, our ability to guide a 2,000 pound bomb through a tiny window - all these abilities may revolutionize battles, and the kinds of quick-strike engagements that have characterized warfare in this young century, but in a long-term war, those capabilities will most likely be degraded or neutralized early on. The very things that gave us such an advantage will become a liability if we allow the siren call of the RMA to convince us that war is anything more or less than men with weapons in their hands doing their damndest to kill each other.

The Air Force does some of its best work when it keeps the skies clear of enemy aircraft, so our ground troops can do what they need to do. This is why we need the F-22. The Joint Strike Fighter may do a better job of ground support (I say "may" because I don't know one way or the other.) but we definitely need an air superiority fighter to keep the skies clear of the enemy fighters and bombers that would attack our troops on the ground. Many of my brothers and sisters in blue uniforms will think me a heretic for saying it, but air power is not an end in and of itself. It is most effective when it is used jointly to complement the efforts of the other services, all of which comes down to supporting the man with the rifle. Yes, air power can reap huge strategic effects, and may even, as Col John Warden, the architect of the air campaign in the first Gulf War said, cause "strategic paralysis" all of which is very much in keeping with RMA lines of thinking. What we can't do from the air though, is capture and hold territory; nor can we interact directly with people in a way that turns a foe into a conquored people, into an ally. All of that will always come down to ground forces doing what they have done ever since the long bow represented the greatest revolution in military affairs.

As for the twerp who picked a picture of a toy to represent one of the most fearsome killing machines ever invented, I continue to live seven thousand miles away from my wife and children to safeguard his naivete. May he, and all my countrymen, forever be able to be so ignorant, if they choose. It is my hope, however, that enough fine young Americans will continue to chose otherwise that we will be able to defend those who wish to remain ignorant.

For more on this from the "twerp," see "What are We Saving this Capability For?":

With due respect, I don't really get this ...

Farley is responding to The Progressive Realist, "Pilots vs. Drones."

See Also, Neptunus Lex, "Stuck in the Past," who says we need more F-22s:

Tremendous maneuver advantages accrue to those that can sweep the air above a battlefield, and the F-22 does so better than any other design. One hundred and eighty seven is, however, too few to do so persistently in an away game.

Related: Thomas L. Day, "Debate on F-22s Nearing Climax."

Robert Spencer Smeared as 'Islam Basher' in ALA Panel Controversy

Atlas Shrugs has the main story, "CAIR'S Jihad on the West: Robert Spencer Silenced."

Spencer's report is here, "ALA, Panelists Cave to Pressure from Terror-Linked Group, Panel with Spencer Canceled."

Spencer's participation at the American Library Association's annual meeting was attacked by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). The group has long been under investigation as providing material support to international terrorist organizations. See, "The CAIR-Terror Connection", "CAIR and Islamic Jihad", and "CAIR Served in Federal Fraud and Racketeering Case."

Note something interesting: I'm seeing some articles from the Library Journal identifying Spencer as an "Islam Basher." Notice the slur against Spencer in this piece, "ALA Conference 2009: Panelists Quit Session Featuring 'Islam Basher'." And note especially the complete dishonesty at the Library Journal's follow-up report, "ALA Conference 2009: Organization Behind Islam Panel Issues Statement."

Myra Appel, chair of the Ethnic and Multicultural Information Exchange Roundtable (EMIERT), has released a public statement (below) regarding the recent cancellation of the ALA panel "Perspectives on Islam."

Neither Appel’s statement nor the earlier response from ALA President Jim Rettig address the Chicago office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR-Chicago) claim that none of the panelists were informed of Spencer’s participation. But on his Jihad Watch web site, the man at the heart of this controversy, Robert Spencer, contests CAIR’s claim, publishing as evidence a month-old email from Appel informing the panelists of his involvement.

The link to Spencer's "Jihad Watch web site" goes to the homepage, but not to the URL at the post with the published evidence ("ALA, Panelists Cave to Pressure from Terror-Linked Group, Panel with Spencer Canceled").

Of course, Spencer's essay publishes all the pertinent information, which fully reveals both CAIR and the ALA as bureaucratic ayatollahs of intolerance.

Also, check out Dave Gaubatz's report on CAIR's activities at the recent meeting of the Islamic Society of North America (www.isna.net/home.aspx):

On my first day at the conference I had noticed an ISNA security officer following me wielding an extended ‘Billy Club'. I stopped and took a picture of him and he scurried off. A couple hours later I observed two clean shaven and well dressed people following me throughout the convention. I continued my shopping for Islamic terrorist manuals.

Finally after an extended time one of the gentlemen stopped me and asked if I was "Dave Gaubatz". I said "Yes". He introduced himself as an FBI Agent and the other person as a local Detective. I shook hands with them and asked them how I might help. They appeared embarrassed, but said CAIR and ISNA officials had asked for me to be followed because I may be a threat.

I asked why. They had no answer, aside from saying they know I support law enforcement and often speak to law enforcement groups. I remarked, "Yes I do." They again appeared embarrassed and said they knew of my background in Iraq. I nodded. We exchanged cards, and as they were beginning to walk away, I handed the FBI agent a stack of violent Islamic manuals calling the FBI racist and other names and calling for Muslims to commit crimes against law enforcement. The FBI Agent turned red.

Swim Club Pres. Denies Racism in Pool Controversy (VIDEO): PA Human Relations Comm. to Investigate; Leftists Still Silent (Mostly)!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Tuesday's Special Election for the 32nd Congressional District

From the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, "32nd Congressional District Candidates Gear Up for Election":

Democratic congressional candidate Judy Chu says one of her greatest challenges is reminding voters the race to represent a portion of the San Gabriel Valley in Congress isn't over yet.

On Tuesday voters from the 32nd Congressional District will go back to the polls to select from among Judy Chu, Republican Betty Chu and Libertarian Christopher Agrella - the three victors who emerged from the May primary.

"Most voters are surprised that the election is still going on. They thought it was over May 19," Judy Chu said.

Her opponents think she believes it's all over too.

"She acts like she is the incumbent already ... But it ain't over until you know who sings," Libertarian Christopher Agrella said before a candidates' forum Thursday.

It's easy to see how some voters would think the election had been decided.

Most analysts considered the primary the main event because Democrats dominate the district, which stretches from East Los Angeles through Monterey Park, Rosemead, South El Monte, El Monte, Baldwin Park, West Covina, Azusa, Duarte and Covina.

"Judy Chu will be elected, and she will have the seat as long as she wants baring death or scandal," said political analyst Allan Hoffenblum.

Video Hat Tip: CQ Politics.

2001: A Bloggers Odyssey

Or, how to blog, from The Blog Prof, "2001: A Bloggers Odyssey - Or How to Start a Successful Blog":

Since starting this blog back in January (something I should have done much, much earlier), this will be my 2001st post, thus the quasi-clever initial title for which I expect a golf clap. Or not. In any case, starting a blog and writing posts has surely helped focus my thinking on many topics. Before blogging myself, I was an avid blog reader, spending hours each day keeping up on current events. But it is the difference between being a student and being the teacher. When I made the shift to teaching, I had little idea of how much more of a challenge it was, and how much I would learn every time I taught a class, even those that I have already taught many times. That is one aspect that I simply love about my job - learning as I am teaching. I get some of that same benefit from blogging, and would encourage anyone out there to do the same. To this end, this post will serve to be a reference to those that want to start a blog. I will myself lean heavily on the following contributors as they have written many tips:

Stacy McCain at The Other McCain: "How to Get a Million Hits on Your Blog in Less Than a Year."

Donald Douglas at American Power: "How to Become a Successful Conservative Blogger."

Nick De Leeuw at RightMichigan: "Building a Better Blogosphere -or- Where to Start!"

More at the link (lots more!).

Congratulations Blog Prof!

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."