Korean Air Rule 5 – Special Linkmaster Smith Farewell Edition!

Linkmaster Smith – a.k.a Smitty at The Other McCain and the conserva-sphere's babe-blog aggregator par excellence – will soon deploy to Afghanistan. Word has it that a new hipster, Wombat Socho, will be taking over the honors. Apparently the Wombat's still getting up to speed on the ways of the RSS feed, although Ruby Slippers indicates temporary workarounds are available for non-Wordpress bloggers – so as not to miss out on the festivities. (And no doubt Opus_6 will be pleased!)

And number of the Linkmaster's friends paid tribute:

• Common Sense Political Thought
• Cubachi
• DaTechguy
• Fishersville Mike
• Hillbilly Politics
• SI VIS PACEM
• Obi`s Sister
• Little Miss Attila
• The Lonely Conservative
• Mind Numbed Robot
• No Runny Eggs
• No Sheeples Here
• Point of a Gun
• Piece of Work in Progress
• Proof Positive
• The Prudence Paine Papers
• Red State Eclectic
• Right Wing News
• Stark Raving Love
• Suzy Rice
• SWACgirl
• That Mr. Guy
• theblogprof
• The Camp of the Saints
• Troglopundit really brought the love.
• The Conservative Pup
• Dustbury
• The Frugal Cafe
• Left Coast Rebel
• Parc Bench
• Red State
• The Minority Report
• Pirates Cove
• Uncoverage
• WyBlog

And other well-known regulars include the veteran William at Pirate's Cove, as well as Bob Belvedere and Irish Cicero, plus The Real United States.

Theo's been on fire lately, so don't miss that. And bonus blogging from Jimmy Bise, "Clearing the Browser Tabs – A Sunny Sunday Edition."

**********

And be sure to visit some of the other friends of American Power:

* Another Black Conservative.

* Astute Bloggers (Honorary).

* Blazing Cat Fur.

* The Blog Prof.

* Bob Belvedere.

* Classical Liberal.

* Daley Gator.

* Kathy Shaidle.

* Left Coast Rebel.

* Maggie's Notebook.

* Mind Numbed Robot.

* Not a Sheep.

* Pirate's Cove.

* POWIP.

* The Other McCain.

* Reaganite Republican (Honorary).

* Right Klik (Honorary).

* Saberpoint (Honorary).

* Serr8d (Honorary).

* Snooper's Report (Honorary).

* Stormbringer.

* Theo Spark.

* Washington Rebel.

* WyBlog.

* YankeePhil.

* Zion's Trumpet.

BONUS: Don't forget Instapundit.

And drop your link in the comments to be added to the weekly bikini roundups!

Ezra Klein: 'This is My Final Finally-ish Final Word on JournoList!!'

"I actually expect this to be my final public comment on the subject."

Famous last words, from JournoList head-henchman Ezra Klein.

Now the Boy Wonder's got another post up attacking --- wait for it!! --- Tucker Carlson for "smearing" JournoList with omissions and misleading statements and --- Oh, the humanity!!

So, what better way to respond than to attack Tucker Carlson ad hominem? See, "When Tucker Carlson asked to join Journolist." And the best thing is that our boy Ezra confirms what everyone knows of JournoList: It was designed as an inside left-wing conspiracy and there was no way any conservatives would be allowed to join the discussion group. Even better is Boy Wonder's admission that the "evil" Michelle Malkin would never --- NEVER!! --- be allowed to join the list. Hmm, afraid something untoward might actually get out, like, um, wishing people like Rush Limbaugh were dead AND not getting a hint of backlash among JournoListers to those views? Face it, Ezra, you people are evil and oh so un-journalist-like. Best thing is to just leave a beefy quotation for posterity:

If this series [at The Daily Caller] now rests on Tucker's credibility, then let's talk about something else he doesn't mention: I tried to add him to the list. I tried to give him access to the archives. Voluntarily. Because though I believed it was important for the conversation to be off-the-record, I didn't believe there was anything to hide.

The e-mail came on May 25th. Tucker didn't ask that it be off-the-record, so I'm not breaking a confidence by publishing it. Here it is, in full:

Dear Ezra,

I keep hearing about how smart the policy conversations on JournoList are, and am starting to feel like I'm missing out by not reading them. Could I join?

I realize you and I don't share the same politics, but I can promise you I have no interest in flaming anyone or even debating (I get enough of that). I'm just interested in knowing what smart progressives are saying. It strikes me that's the one thing I'm missing in my daily reading.

Please tell me what you think. If it makes you uncomfortable, ask around. I'm pretty sure we know a lot of the same people.

All best,

Tucker Carlson.

At the time, I didn't know Carlson was working on a story about Journolist. And I'd long thought that the membership rules that had made sense in the beginning had begun to feed conspiracy theories on the right and cramp conversation inside the list. I wrote him back about 30 minutes later.

We definitely have friends in common, and I'd have no worries about you joining. The problem is I need to have clear rules, as i don't want to be in the position of forcing fine-grained membership tests based on opaque criteria. Thus far, it's been center to left, just because that was how people wanted it at the beginning in order to feel comfortable talking freely. I've been meaning for some time to ask the list about revisiting that, so I'll take this opportunity and get back to you.

I then wrote this e-mail to Journolist:

As folks know, there are a couple of rules for J List membership. One is that you can't be working for the government. Another is that you're center to left of center, as that was something various people wanted back in the day. I've gotten a couple of recent requests from conservatives who want to be added (and who are people I think this list might benefit from), however, and so it seems worth asking people whether they'd like to see the list opened up. Back in the day, I'd probably have let this lie, but given that Journolist now leaks like a sieve, it seems worth revisiting some of the decisions made when it was meant to be a more protected space.

As I see it, the pro of this is that it could make for more fun conversations. The con of it is that it becomes hard to decide who to add and who to leave off (I don't want to have to make subjective judgments, but I'm also not going to let Michelle Malkin hop onto the list), and it also could create even more possible leaks -- and now, they'd be leaks with more of an agenda, which could be much more destructive to trust on the list.

I want to be very clear about what I was suggesting: Adding someone to the list meant giving them access to the entirety of the archives. That didn't bother me very much. Sure, you could comb through tens of thousands of e-mails and pull intemperate moments and inartful wording out of context to embarrass people, but so long as you weren't there with an eye towards malice, you'd recognize it for what it was: A wonkish, fun, political yelling match. If it had been an international media conspiracy, I'd have never considered opening it up.

The idea was voted down. People worried about opening the archives to individuals who could help their careers by ripping e-mails out of context, misrepresenting the nature of the ongoing conversation, and bringing the world an exclusive look into The Great Journolist Conspiracy, as opposed to the daily life of Journolist, which even Carlson describes as "actually pretty banal."

Voted down?

Well, of course. Really bad goings-on were going on there, and the more Ezra Klein talks about it the more we know that all the moral condemnation is entirely justified and wondrously gratifying.

Perhaps Boy Wonder should take his own advice and now just STFU before somebody slams him through some damned JournoListic plate-glass window.

HAT TIP: AoSHQ, "Ezra Wails: "I didn't believe there was anything to hide."

Who Are the 238 Presidential Scholars, Historians, and Political Scientists Polled for the SRI Presidential Rankings? — UPDATE!!

It's just comedy, really.

The main story's here, at Politico: "Professors rank President Obama 15th best president." Also Cassy Fiano offers the best one-paragraph summary:

Some “scholars” made a list ranking our presidents from best to worst. Apparently, President Zero is already a better president than Ronald Reagan, and predictably, Dubya is ranked one of the worst. Gee, this list sounds objective. Oh, and guess who number one is? FDR!

Exactly.

Some "scholars" placed Democrat FDR and Democratic-Republican (Anti-Hamiltonian) Thomas Jefferson ahead of Republican Abraham Lincoln.

Hey nothing like a little partisanship in an "objective" scholarly ranking.

And note something else: Here's the headline to the Siena presidential survey from 2006, "Experts: Bush Presidency is a Failure: Little Chance to Improve Ranking." More objectivity, no doubt.

I've checked the SRI links (the summary and the crosstabs). There's no information on the poll's respondents, which violates ethical survey sampling methodology.

Here's the contact information: Professor Tom Kelly: 518-372-7890 or Dr. Douglas Lonnstrom: 518-783-2362. I'm looking for e-mail addresses, and will update with those when I find them. And when I get it, I'll publish the list of the 238 "objective" scholars as well.

I should be laughing, and then I remember that these idiots are in charge of educating a large portion of today's youth. Society's going FUBAR.

**********

UPDATE: Just got off the phone with Professor Tom Kelly at Siena College. He told me the survey's "anonymous." He was was real nice. I asked if I could see the list of survey respondents. He said, "Well that's the thing. The survey is anonymous." I doubt Professor Kelly was up on things like Memeorandum. I asked about criticisms of left-wing bias at the poll, and he said, "Oh, I've heard things like that before." You think? Only a far-lefty could love a polling monstrosity like this. When I inquired a bit more about the identity of the respondents he said the reason for anonymity was designed to increase "objectivity." Hmm... Probably more likely to increase physical safety. He mentioned that the poll had gained reputation and the survey's write-ups have been published in Presidential Studies Quarterly, although I don't see a citation at the Wikipedia entry. (But here it is: "Rating the presidents: a tracking study," by Douglas A. Lonnstrom , Thomas O. II Kelly.) Frankly, only academics could like something like this.

(Well, actually, the MSM eats it up. See "In a new hard time, FDR's aura endures." Professor Kelly is interviewed there. Also, here's the Siena press release, "Siena Poll: American Presidents.")

Stuff like this is frankly another blow on the credibility of high-falutin scholarly research. As Rick Moran points out at American Thinker:

It's that the nation's public intellectuals operate so much in a cocoon that they don't realize people are laughing at them when they make Barack Obama the 15th best president of all time, while giving him "high marks for intelligence, ability to communicate and imagination." The evidence for any of that is so lacking that it obviously exists only in the minds of the respondents.

Additional commentary at Common Sense Political Thought (in high demand, obviously) and TrogloPundit (so simply even a Troglo can do it!).

Mom Gets Contempt of Court for Taking Kids to Jury Duty

Now this is not right ... "Juror Penalized for Taking Kids to Court: Judge Held Mom Without Child Care in Contempt for Bringing Young Kids to Court":

But see the Detroit Free Press, "Judge's Move to Jail Juror is Criticized by State Court: Mom Had to Weigh Day Care, Civic Duty."

Sounds like a mean judge. That said, courts give potential jurors months to plan ahead. Maybe the mother, Carmela Khury, is an activist.

ADDED: Dana from Common Sense Political Thought, at the comments:

According to the story, she had day care planned, but it fell through at the last minute.

Sounds to me like the judge lacks judgement.

Not an activist, I guess ... ?

Can't Kill the Buzz of Liberty: Thoughts on Independence Hall

Actually, this seems like a comment from folks like snark-ass JBW:

Dear Dr Douglas: If you want to see the Liberty Bell, or the place where the Declaration of Independence was debated and signed, we have the originals here in Pennsylvania; you don't have to see faux copies.

But actually, that's from Dana at Common Sense Political Thought. I read his blog, and I admire is daughter, PFC Pico, and I link to him often - and most of all I wish I could have coffee with him in Philly. So, God bless him, why he was moved to post a little put down like that is beyond me. But it does serve as a catalyst to write about yesterday's event at further length.

I noted a couple of days ago that I hadn't been to Independence Hall at Knott's Berry Farm since I was in 5th grade. My class went there on a field trip. It's interesting that I've never forgotten the experience. I especially enjoyed seeing the replica of the Liberty Bell. As a local tourist website notes, "Walter Knott's deep love of country and home drove him to build the country's only brick-by-brick replica of Independence Hall." And that's the thing. Why would a Southern California entrepreneur spend his own money, in the 1960s, to build an exact version of the Pennsylvania State House, where our founding documents were signed? It's one of the most powerful affirmations of American exceptional one can make. Other people sure haven't taken that contribution for granted, as the Knott's Wikipedia entry notes, "Independence Hall was so well recreated that it was used in the 2004 film 'National Treasure'." And because admission is free, the facility is a phenomenal historical resource for our local communities. No doubt untold numbers of Southern California children have toured Independence Hall with their families and with their teachers and classmates. And I know many of those with less advantage -- and thus without the financial ability to travel to Philadelphia -- would never ridicule this fabulous historical recreation as a cheap "faux" copy. We're are blessed to have so cherished a replica here at home.

Of course, I'm sure Representative Royce knew exactly what he was doing when he invited Representative Bachmann to attend a rally at Knott's Independence Hall. The tea parties, and our few congressional leaders who really understand them, reflect the spirit of 1776. When I met Opus yesterday I told her and her friends that I've never participated as much in American politics as I have in the last year. I've been a political junkie for 25 years, and a political scientist almost as long. But I've learned more about our political system this last year -- and especially about the mass media! -- than I ever did inside a classroom.

And going to Knott's Berry Farm yesterday felt like I'd gone full circle from my childhood. That was forty years ago, and never would I have thought back then how much I'd come to love and appreciate our institutions so much. I teach the meaning of the Declaration of Independence every semester, and I can guarantee you that way too many students don't appreciate the fundamental philosophical foundations embedded in that piece of parchment. Many of them don't know that Jefferson's handiwork ties together a long line of Western political thought, handiwork that at that time was preserved for the ages in the founding of a new nation. They certainly don't know that later freedom fighters, like those fighting for liberty in Eastern Europe during the Cold War, would read the Declaration of Independence at their own revolutions from tyranny (e.g., Prague in 1989).

So, when we rally at events like this, no one takes for granted the real Independence Hall in Philadelphia. We wish we could be there with our fellow patriots. Michele Bachmann was so powerful yesterday in her effusive thanks to all the people who took time out from their busy lives to reaffirm the founding principles of our nation. She noted that it's going to take people like this to take the country back. David Horowitz, who gave a brief speech before Representative Bachmann was introduced, argued that the November 2010 elections were the most important elections in his lifetime. He even had to stop himself and admit, that yes, all elections seem like they're the most important ever. But he noted that the congressional midterms this year are an unmatched epic moment for Americans to apply the brakes, to slow the real push to Democratic-socialism in this country. This is not hyperbole. This is from a man who was one of the leading 1960s activists, one who knows real communist agitators and one who doesn't apply a lot of spin in his analysis (Horowitz rejects the "birther" talk and all that).

In any case, I just needed to vent about this -- since you can't kill the buzz of liberty! I told my good friend Jan at Vinegar and Honey that next to my family, I'm most happy when I'm with my fellow tea party patriots. I've been so enriched and strengthened this last year, with all the activism and comaraderie, I can't express how meaningful it's all been. My faith in America is constantly renewed. My hope is that my friend Dana at Common Sense Political Thought will keep these words in mind as we move forward in 2010 and work to rekindle the promise of events that took place nearly 235 years ago in his home state of Pennsylvania.

Heavy Rain Closes Colleges in Long Beach

It was a torrential downpour when I ran out from my office building yesterday to head home from work. I had parked by the athletic facilities, and thus after pulling my car out I drove south on Faculty toward Conant, and then right over to Lakewood Boulevard south, which is my normal route in the afternoon. Perhaps I should have thought twice about it (although at the moment it was raining so hard I doubted an alternative route would have been better). Lakewood was totally flooded and I thought some of the cars might stall from the high water -- mine included. Police had set up a detour at the Lakewood Boulevard and Spring Street intersection, and I traveled east on Spring to Bellflower Boulevard to the 405 southbound. And to my surprise, not a car was on the freeway when I pulled up around the on-ramp. No doubt the 405 was flooded not too far up the road northbound, and the traffic on the other side of the freeway was backed up. When I got home, ABC 7 was showing clips of the Lakewood Boulevard undercrossing (which goes literally under the Long Beach Airport) totally flooded out with mud and debris:

Unlike Long Beach State, where the semester doesn't start until next week, my college is open for classes. Here's the message at the LBCC website as I logged on from my kitchen laptop to write this post:

Thursday January 21, 2010, 4:30 p.m.

Tonight’s weather forecast for Long Beach predicts more rainfall, but at this time, both LAC and PCC campuses are scheduled to remain open for evening classes. We will notify you immediately if there are any changes via email and updates on the LBCC home page.

Please continue to exercise caution when walking around/within campuses, as the walkways and floors may be slippery.

Eloy O. Oakley,
Superintendent-President

Thanks to Dana at Common Sense Political Thought, who asked if my house was dry. That's an affirmative. But it's gnarlier around here than I can remember for a long time.

Check KABC-TV Los Angeles for updates on the Southern California storms.

Switching to WordPress?

Dana at Common Sense Political Thought often nudges me to switch to WordPress. I'm not so much against it as I'm not that unsatisfied with Blogger. Sure, folks say migrating over to WordPress is superior, and most of the biggest blogs on the web use it (Dana Loesch, Hot Air, Instapundit at Pajamas, Jules Crittenden, Michelle Malkin, and RightWingNews, for some random examples). But I recall Ann Althouse writing about Blogger migration issues sometime back. She said she had no intention of leaving Blogger, mainly because of free hosting (and general dependability). It's not that she was being cheap or anything. It was that she had lots of stuff online. I recall she mentioned her podcasts at the time. They were just sitting there, not being used, and she was paying for it. With Blogger, as long as the company's in business your blog is parked, for free. I like that. (This is my second blog, and my first one's still over there, ready to raid as a resource from time to time.) My issue now is photo-hosting. It's the only thing I pay for, at Photobucket. I works pretty good, although Stogie got pissed with 'em for false promotional claims (they have this screwy "bandwidth" limit every month, and in fact that's why I went pro at the time). If I switch from Photobucket, my older pics now at American Power will deactivate. Still, it's something I'm thinking about. How's Flickr working out for folks?

Anyway, though, Smitty at The Other McCain was talking trash on how hot the WordPress makeover at Robert's blog has been, and he notes:

On a technical note, the power of WordPress to support these FMJRAs is astounding .... Two points: we should have gone to the WordPress platform sooner, and people still in the Blogger ghetto should consider switching to a WordPress site, if only for the joy of better trackback/pingback coverage. My, don’t we sound just a tad bit uppity now that we’ve got our own domain and stuff?

"FMJRA" is "Full-Metal Jacket Reach-Around" for those not familiar with "How to Get a Million Hits on Your Blog in Less Than a Year." But I think Smitty spoke a little too early (and I'm just ribbing him a bit), even though he was mostly kidding around. I was checking over there last night for some on-the-ground reporting from Massachusetts, where Robert's working the Scott Brown freelance beat, and I got this error message:

It says "If you can see this page, the people who manage this server have installed ..."

In other words, our server's crashed right now. Check back later. I haven't talked to Robert since he was covering the BCS championship, but this isn't the first time their blog's gone down. So, while it's hot and all that -- WordPress is working better as a technical platform -- it's kind of a bummer for regular readers and fellow bloggers when one can't get on the site. (That's a hosting issue, not WordPress per se, but still ...) That's of course hardly ever a problem on Blogger, although it's happened a couple of times. Since they redid the Blogger template a couple of years back, the program has been super dependable. I can only remember one or two times when I couldn't get on my dashboard, and the whole service has gone out maybe once. That, along with the pricing, is attractive for folks, and of course Blogger is EASY!! I'm still figuring out how to do stuff. So, yeah, one of these days I too will migrate to WordPress. I'd enjoy something with a way more professional look, especially if my blogging keeps going well and getting popular (as it has this last year or so). In the meanwhile, I'm cool on Blogger. But if anyone's got some ideas for photo-hosting I'm all ears!

Barrett Brown Doesn't Read Well

Barrett Brown has a new post up, entitled "Donald Douglas Answers My Questions and Then Some."

He's apparently upset that I suggested previously that he doesn't read well, and he responds:

Let us set aside the irony of someone claiming that his opponent “doesn’t read well” or “comprehend” particular brands of “dialogue” before going on to misspell a common word.

Hey, he's got me there! I really did misspell "merchandising," although it's not like I haven't addressed the point previously! See, "Blogging PNSfW; or, Now Hiring at American Power: Neocon Copy Editor!" So, yeah, it's true: I really do need that copy editor!

That said, seriously, Barrett Brown desperately needs to develop his critical reading skills. For one thing, I absolutely did not "respond" to his smear jobs. Stogie at Saber Point did. Brown writes, for example:

Having gotten into a dispute a while back with Donald Douglas of the prominent conservative blog American Power, I last week posted seven questions for Douglas regarding Robert Stacy McCain’s white supremacist activities, which Douglas, of course, does not recognize as such. Still, he has been kind enough to answer me ...

And:

Let’s take a look at how he’s managed to deal with them ...

Brown then proceeds to quote the entire set of responses to his post, "Seven Questions for Donald Douglas on the Question of R.S. McCain’s Racism." Of course, those are Stogie's responses, as I noted at the time:

Folks can read the whole essay for themselves. It's the same old worthless allegations ... In fact, I was actually going to ignore 'em. But since I had just spent the day with Robert Stacy McCain last week (and Brown's been reading my blog, suggesting that I'm "very close" with McCain), I thought I'd send the entry over to my good buddy Stogie at Saber Point. To my surprise, Stogie sent back a point-by-point rebuttal to Brown's "seven questions" (questions by the way which are themselves based in unsubstantiated assertions). So, here you go, in any case ...

And then at the end of Stogie's response, I wrote again:

Barrett Brown concluded his essay by saying he hoped that I'd "choose to answer these questions." Well, Stogie's answered them eminently well here, and I wouldn't have done so too much differently. But again I probably wouldn't have bothered to answer them at all, since Barrett Brown obviously didn't take care to address what I'd written in the first place (I've read American Renaissance, for example, and said what I thought about it already). Frankly, Brown stonewalled and mischaracterized my post, and I doubt he has the kind of decency that I'd expect in one worth engaging at a serious, substantive level altogether.

It's hard to see why Barret Brown thought that I'd responded to his seven questions, when Stogie actually had. Indeed, the very first comment at the post, from Dana at Common Sense Political Thought, took issue with Stogie's interpretation of the Old Testament. So, I'm restating the point for the record: BARRETT BROWN DOESN'T READ WELL! Perhaps Mr. Brown was so excited to nail me on misspelling "merchandising" that he frankly ejaculated prematurely dropped the ball on the big picture.

Indeed, that reminds me that I might as well restate my main contention from my previous entry, which is that Brown has "stonewalled and mischaracterized my post," and now on top of that he's calling me a "liar." That is, he quotes me as saying, that "I’ve looked through everything he’s linked," and then wrongly infers that I've read everything HE'S EVER LINKED WITH RESPECT TO ROBERT STACY MCCAIN. And thus, that allegedly makes me a liar. Actually, as anyone even vaguely familiar with blogging would know, when I say that "I’ve looked through everything he’s linked," that's an ovbvious reference to "everything" at the very post in which he attacked Robert as racist, which would be, "A Reply to Donald Douglas and a Restatement of My Offer to R.S. McCain."

Folks can read my original post if they're so bored that they've got nothing better to do. See, "A Theory* of Racist Smears and the Case of Robert Stacy McCain."

In any case, that's enough time-wasting with this True/Slant airhead. Barrett Brown has never addressed the main point of contention, which is that he's an unprincipled smear merchant who has nothing on Robert Stacy McCain which hasn't been addressed elsewhere. The question to Barrett Brown is why? Why devote an entire chapter in a book to rehashing years-old debates on Robert Stacy McCain's confederate ties. Stogie responded to those allegations perfectly well. But I'm looking for something a bit more illuminating. When I mentioned Barrett Brown's atheism, the point was to illustrate that gay rights and civil rights activists have one thing they can hang their hats on -- allegations of bigotry, racism, etc. I've already debunked the claims that McCain's racist, and Stogie's added additional commentary to cast futher light on the issues from a southern perspective.

I wouldn't spend time with Robert Stacy McCain if I thought he was a white supremacist. Whatever sins of racial insensitivity Robert's guilty of they happened before I met him. Had Robert attacked me or my family with bigoted slurs or deeply immoral racial prejudice I would have written about it by now, and repudiated them.

Perhaps Barrett "I Need to Learn How to Read" Brown might address those issues instead of beating around the bush of obfuscation, prevarication, and denial.

Political Science and Pop Culture Blogging!

I've been reading Professor Daniel Drezner's blog for years now -- in fact, I started blogging largely because of him. He's a pretty big scholar in the political science discipline. In fact, readers might enjoy his recent article (which I blogged about earlier), "Bad Debts: Assessing China's Financial Influence in Great Power Politics." But Drezner's also a culture blogger. He used to routinely post photos of Selma Hayek, the fabulous movie star also known for her endowment. (He linked recently to an article with Ms. Hayek's picture at the Wall Street Journal.) Interestingly, Ms. Hayek majored in international relations before turning to acting! And you know, there's something about hot women and politics. Fox News' Courtney Friel is a political scientist!

Anyway, I'm mentioning all of this after checking Drezner's blog this morning. He's updated the look a bit, with that new picture of him across the nameplate, which reads, "Daniel W. Drezner: Global Poltics, Economics, & Pop Culture."

And as readers have noticed, I've been discussing my own blogging around here, and while I may cut back on the output a bit in the new year, I'll continue to provide commentary on celebrity news and pop culture, with lots of babe blogging. I know some of my feminine readers could do without the breasts, but hey, us political scientists need our hotness diversions as well!

In any case, if I could just get Dana at Common Sense Political Thought to post some cheesecake once in a while, I'd be good!

Salahis Speak Out on 'Today Show', Play Victim Card: 'Our Lives Have Been Destroyed'; Matt Lauer Gives Party Crashers Free Pass on Islamist Ties!

Gateway Pundit has the headline, "The Radical Salahis Stick With Their Story – Say They Were Invited to White House."

But check the video:

The key moment is at about 1:30 minutes. Matt Lauer asks the couple if they've been "mischaracterized" by the media. Tareq and Michaele plead they've been devastated: "Our lives have been destroyed." The couple is totally evasive throughout the entire interview, and Lauer -- who asks some pointed questions -- lets these fame-seekers off the hook. He asks only one follow up question, saying he wants to be "more specific," but is stonewalled again by the Salahis. They plead the the truth will come out in the Secret Service investigation, but the couple's radical ties to ATFP never come up. Lauer drops the ball and skips any mention of the White House's epic security breach, and especially the key role that Desiree Rogers -- the Obamas' hand-groomed Social Secretary and flak-catcher -- had in creating the scandal.

Give Lauer credit for exposing the Salahis' fraud in the early part of the interview, where they refuse to respond to questions about their Pentagon e-mails. Otherwise, way too sweet of an appearance. These people are not victims. They're glamor-seekers, and stuff's hitting the fan now. As Michelle Malkin indicated today, there's lots more here than meets the eye. See, ""Crashergate, Desiree Rogers, and the Chicago Way: Land of no consequences; Update: House Panel to Hold Hearing."

More at Hot Air, "Video: Crashers Deny Crashing White House party." Also, the Los Angeles Times, "State Dinner Crashers Exchanged E-Mails with Pentagon Official." (via Memeorandum).

ADDED: Linked at Common Sense Political Thought, "Oh, the Poor Dears! See also, Camp of the Saints, "A FISHY MAIN COURSE."

Protesters Seize Wheeler Hall at UC Berkeley (VIDEO) -- Plus, Police Close Roads to UC Santa Cruz as Campus Comes Under Seige!

From Oakland's KTVU TV, "Protesters Take Over Wheeler Hall On UC Berkeley Campus":

A group of approximately 40 students protesting the fee hikes approved by University of California Regents Thursday have reportedly taken over Wheeler Hall on the UC Berkeley campus Friday morning.

KTVU has received reports that a group of students are currently occupying the building. UC campus police have cordoned off the building with police tape as eight or nine additional squad cars arrived to address the situation.

Students could be seen hanging out of windows on upper floors at Wheeler Hall. There are reports that police have already used pepper spray in one confrontation with the students. Officers appear to be preparing to make arrests in an effort to regain control of the building.

The students are taking a stand against the fee hike approved by Regents Thursday that will push the cost of undergraduate education to more than $10,000 a year.

Click here for KTVU video report.

Plus, at San Jose Mercury News, "Police Close Roads Due to Protesting UC Santa Cruz Students."

RELATED: " ‘Mobilizing Conference’ for Public Schools Revives ’60s-Era Campus Radicalism."

**********
UPDATE: From Common Sense Political Thought, "Oh, the poor dears! Their tuition is too high, so they want poorer people to have to dig a little deeper to pay for their own privileged educations."

And here's more video, via the San Francisco Chronicle and Memeorandum:

Obama Dishonors Commander-in-Chief Role

My good friend Dana at Common Sense Political Thought left this comment at the blog (regarding the refusal of President Obama to visit the families at Fort Hood):

I don't know that I'd criticize President Obama on this one: he does have a full schedule, and the President of the United States can't always just drop everything.

I respect Dana immensely, and I'm proud and thankful of his daughter for her service, but there's really little debate on this: American soldiers have been killed on home ground in a premediated, religiously-motivated terrorist attack. The president needs to be with the families of the dead and wounded, and he needs to come out more forcefully against what has happened. The shootings have been described as an act of war by retired military personnel. And actually, I probably wouldn't have posted on the disagreement, but it turns out that Comrade Repsac3 has been trolling the comments this weekend, and he's piggy-backing on Dana's comments to attempt a "consensus repudiation" of American Power.

So, with all due respect, let's go to Flopping Aces:

The priority for the Commander In Chief, IMHO, would be to bypass any planned speech and immediately fly to Austin, Texas, act like a Commander in Chief, go to the site of the shootings, meet with senior staff, assess the situation and events that led to the shootings, speak to the troops, particularly the injured, demonstrate concern and take action based on the findings of your assessment. Such actions should include addressing the families of the fallen and the injured. Assure the American people that their military bases and the security of the bases are not compromised and all possible measures will be taken to tighten what already has been established to safeguard the safety of soldier.

But see also, Charisse Van Horn, "President Obama Handles Fort Hood Shooting With Kid Gloves":

There are many differences between President Obama and former president George Bush but none may be as glaring as President Obama’s handling of the Fort Hood shooting. There is no doubt that former president George Bush would have taken to the airwaves and held a special news conference.

Though President Obama has made three attempts to speak against the violence that transpired on November 5, 2009, he has yet to do so. In each of his remarks, he discussed the facts, the need for patience, and the grief that victims’ families are undergoing. He has yet to condemn the shooting, nor illustrate ways to prevent this from happening in the future.

And, David Horowitz, "Obama’s Ft. Hood Reaction is Far Worse than the Left’s Smear of Bush’s 'Pet Goat' Moment":

Will President Barack Obama be able to avoid negative attention for his initial reaction to the Fort Hood Massacre? His first speech after the killing of at least 13 soldiers on a US military base showed a complete lack of any presidential leadership. It may (and should) go down in history as far worse than the “Pet Goat” incident.

On September 11, 2001 President George W. Bush heard a plane had hit the World Trade Center when he was about to hear elementary kids read a book to him at a school in Florida. Bush had a whisper in his ear from Andrew Card about the plane while he was in front of a group of small children. At that point the complete picture of a full scale terrorist attack was not known. Bush knew something was happening, but he did not know how bad, and he did not want to frighten the kids in front of him.

The book the children read to him was called “The Pet Goat” and that incident has been used to attack Bush by the Left ever since ....

After meeting with the children and getting more information, President Bush gave a short but powerful press conference to the country. It showed great leadership and clarity on what was going on. You can debate if he should have immediately ran out on the kids and then made his speech, but there is no debating the strength of his first public words on the incident.

As the world watched he started out his speech:

“Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward, and freedom will be defended.”

Plus, see AOSHQ, "The Narrative: Hasan Was Suffering From Mental Problems. Subtext: So Are All Soldiers And It's Bush's Fault":

Today President Shout-Out said we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

"We don't know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts," Obama said in a Rose Garden statement otherwise devoted to the economy.

Funny but he was willing to reach conclusions within hours of the murder of abortionist George Tiller. Interestingly, it took Him 2 days to issue a statement when a Muslim terrorist killed a soldier at an Army recruitment office in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Seems some incidents call for restraint and others call for immediate conclusions.

Also, compare and contrast the media reaction.

Immediately Tiller's murder an act of domestic terrorism (here, here and here for just a few examples. Warning: liberal sites).

Now however, we must not even consider the idea that Hasan is a Muslim terrorist. Wouldn't want to spread fear and hate.

Just to be clear, jumping to conclusions is not what anyone is advocating. My problem with Obama and his courtiers in the media is that there are certain classes and subject which may not be speculated about but there are clearly some times when it's ok.

The media is most definitely jumping to conclusions, one unconnected to anything we know about Hasan while at the same time ruling out any consideration of a subset of the things for which there is evidence or at least indications.

So, folks can see why I might not be fully in sync with my good friend Dana. (And Repsac3 can hump a stump for all I care.)

McCain to Obama: Make Afghanistan Decision Now!

From the Boston Globe, "McCain to Obama: Send Troops Now":

Senator John McCain, President Obama's Republican foe last year, has largely supported his rival since the election.

But now, the Vietnam War hero and Iraq troop surge supporter is putting increasing pressure on Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan -- and do it soon.

The president has held six war councils and counting to decide the strategy going forward, and some expect him to wait on deciding on his top commander's request for as many as 40,000 additional troops until after the Nov. 7 Afghan presidential run-off election.

But McCain said on "The Early Show" on CBS this morning that the war policy in Afghanistan "has been reviewed time and again" and it's time to act because the long delay "is not helpful to our effort" and is frustrating military commanders and making allies nervous.

And in an op-ed posted online on CNN today, McCain calls on Obama to move as quickly as possible to grant General Stanley McChrystal's request for additional troops.

McCain notes that he supported the Afghanistan strategy that Obama laid out in March, when he announced his decision to dispatch 21,000 more US troops. And the senator also stresses that he backed Obama's appointment of McChrystal as the top US commander on the ground -- so the president should listen to the general now.

See McCain's article at CNN, "Why We Can — And Must — Win in Afghanistan."

RELATED: Common Sense Political Thought, "Is President Obama's Foreign Policy Making a Difference Yet?"

Preserving the American Nuclear Deterrent

As a candidate, President Obama repeatedly announced his intentions to pursue a "nuclear free world." In October 2007, Obama pledged a reduction of stockpiles of fissile material, with the ultimate goal of ridding the world of nuclear arms. In July 2008, at his speech in Berlin, Obama called to "renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons." And in April this year, Obama told a crowd in Prague that "his administration would 'reduce the role of nuclear weapons” in its national security strategy."

These announcements are striking in the context of the history of American strategic policy. And as Keir Lieber and Daryl Press argue in their new article at Foreign Affairs, the nuclear peace of the last 60 years has perhaps dulled the sense of urgency that ought normally reside in discussions of high nuclear politics. Should the administration carry out its repeated pledges to make dramatic unilateral cuts in U.S. stockpiles, our country's national security might well face new extreme dangers.

Here's a passage from Lieber and Press', "The Nukes We Need: Preserving the American Deterrent":

The central problem for U.S. deterrence in the future is that even rational adversaries will have powerful incentives to introduce nuclear weapons -- that is, threaten to use them, put them on alert, test them, or even use them -- during a conventional war against the United States. If U.S. military forces begin to prevail on the battlefield, U.S. adversaries may use nuclear threats to compel a cease-fire or deny the United States access to allied military bases. Such threats might succeed in pressuring the United States to settle the conflict short of a decisive victory.

Such escalatory strategies are rational. Losing a conventional war to the United States would be a disastrous outcome for any leader, and it would be worth taking great risks to force a cease-fire and avert total defeat. The fate of recent U.S. adversaries is revealing. The ex-dictator of Panama, Manuel Noriega, remains in a Miami prison. The former Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic, awaits trial in The Hague, where Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic died in detention three years ago. Saddam Hussein's punishment for losing the 2003 war was total: his government was toppled, his sons were killed, and he was hanged on a dimly lit gallows, surrounded by enemies. Even those leaders who have eluded the United States -- such as the Somali warlord Muhammad Farah Aidid and Osama bin Laden -- have done so despite intense U.S. efforts to capture or kill them. The United States' overseas conflicts are limited wars only from the U.S. perspective; to adversaries, they are existential. It should not be surprising if they use every weapon at their disposal to stave off total defeat.

Coercive nuclear escalation may sound like a far-fetched strategy, but it was NATO's policy during much of the Cold War. The Western allies felt that they were hopelessly outgunned in Europe at the conventional level by the Warsaw Pact. Even though NATO harbored little hope of prevailing in a nuclear war, it planned to initiate a series of escalating nuclear operations at the outbreak of war -- alerts, tactical nuclear strikes, and wider nuclear attacks -- to force the Soviets to accept a cease-fire. The United States' future adversaries face the same basic problem today: vast conventional military inferiority. They may adopt the same solution. Leaders in Beijing may choose gradual, coercive escalation if they face imminent military defeat in the Taiwan Strait -- a loss that could weaken the Chinese Communist Party's grip on power. And if U.S. military forces were advancing toward Pyongyang, there is no reason to expect that North Korean leaders would keep their nuclear weapons on the sidelines.

Layered on top of these challenges are two additional ones. First, U.S. conventional military doctrine is inherently escalatory. The new American way of war involves launching simultaneous air and ground attacks throughout the theater to blind, confuse, and overwhelm the enemy. Even if the United States decided to leave the adversary's leaders in power (stopping short of regime change so as to prevent the confrontation from escalating), how would Washington credibly convey the assurance that it was not seeking regime change once its adversary was blinded by attacks on its radar and communication systems and command bunkers? A central strategic puzzle of modern war is that the tactics best suited to dominating the conventional battlefield are the same ones most likely to trigger nuclear escalation.

Furthermore, managing complex military operations to prevent escalation is always difficult. In 1991, in the lead-up to the Persian Gulf War, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker assured Iraq's foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, that the United States would leave Saddam's regime in power as long as Iraq did not use its chemical or biological weapons. But despite Baker's assurance, the U.S. military unleashed a major bombing campaign targeting Iraq's leaders, which on at least one occasion nearly killed Saddam. The political intent to control escalation was not reflected in the military operations, which nearly achieved a regime change.

In future confrontations with nuclear-armed adversaries, the United States will undoubtedly want to prevent nuclear escalation. But the leaders of U.S. adversaries will face life-and-death incentives to use their nuclear arsenals to force a cease-fire and remain in power.

The authors go on to outline the advanced technological basis for maintaining a robust "counter-target" nuclear deterrence policy. Lieber and Press speak of the "grim logic" of rational decision-making, and they anticipate criticisms from those who'd claim that their war-gaming scenarios are "macabre." But as they note:

Deterrence depends on the capacity to carry out threats. Retaining that capacity is not a sign that the United States has moved beyond deterrence to a war-fighting posture for its nuclear arsenal; rather, the capacity to execute threats is the very foundation of deterrence.

It's not a mystery as to why this administration is so intent on dismantling the strategic security apparatus that's kept great power peace since the end of World War II. This president sees the United States as the greatest threat to internatioanal order - that's why he's toured the world making apologies for American policies and power projection, and that's why he won the Nobel Peace Prize. But hopey-changey platitudes of world peace are essentially exogenous to the logic of military-strategic rationality. Ignoring these facts will make war more likely, not less, with an even greater risk of catastrophic loss of life.

**********

UPDATE: See also Common Sense Political Thought, "Foreign Policy 101: Do We Really Want to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons?"

Shocker! Obama Pentagon to Bury Bush Doctrine

If there's one thing leftists hate more than anything else about the foreign policy of George W. Bush, it was the administration's bold willingness to use force in defense of American interests.

So as the Pentagon prepares for its Quadrennial Defense Review, leftists are getting a chance to demonize the previous administration once more (see, "Bush Preemptive Strike Doctrine Under Review, May Be Discarded"). While it's almost comical that this strategic assessment is being framed as a way to revise U.S. doctrine on preemptive war (since President Obama is the personification of exactly the opposite), you've got to love how Daily Kos represents the Bush administration's foreign policy:

Preemption, that is, initiating a first strike against another nation that appears to be preparing an imminent attack or is already in the process of launching one is not particularly controversial. It's self-defense. And every nation has the right to it. Supporters of preventive war, on the other hand, argue for strategically attacking nations which may, someday, pose a military threat. Preventive war cannot, therefore, be distinguished from a war of aggression, a violation of the most fundamental international law ....

It's this kind of thinking which says it's not only OK but downright prudent to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent that country from ever building its own nuclear weapons. Moral issues aside, from a strictly utilitarian point of view, such thinking is no different from saying that torturing an enemy soldier is OK: It lets that enemy or a future enemy justify the torture of one's own soldiers. If it's all right for the U.S. to strike preventively at Iran, why isn't it all right for the same to be done by Iran - which during the Cheney-Bush administration had good reason to believe it was under threat of attack?

Despite all the theoretical justifications of preventive war, the neoconservative Cheney-Bush administration made every effort to present the Iraq war as pre-emptive. That was what all those exaggerations and fabrications were about in the run-up to March 2003. Just days before the Bush Doctrine itself was made public, Bush at the United Nations told the lie that the Iraq "regime is a grave and gathering danger."

Ending the Bush Doctrine and the associated policy spin-offs, would not, of course, mean an end to all the perniciousness of American exceptionalism. But it would be a major step in the right direction. Although it would elicit an extended round of shrieks against Obama from the crowd which claims no war America fights can be called aggression, taking that step would improve our national security instead of weakening it as the Bush Doctrine has done.

Of course, President Bush didn't lie. Virtually all of the major European defense ministries claimed similar intelligence on Iraqi WMD. There was a consensus on the reality of threat, just not what to do about -- especially among countries like France and Russia who were loathe to forfeit their massive oil concessions in Saddam's Iraq should the U.S. fight to uphold the 17 United Nations resolutions the Baghdad regime had long abrogated.

In any case, checking that link at Daily Kos leads to President Bush's speech to the World Body on September 12, 2002: "President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly." This passage is especially noteworthy:

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Also, see Arthur Borden, "Iraq War's Valid Origins":

President Bush has often invoked the memory of Sept. 11, 2001, to justify the war in Iraq. This is understandable, but the war is widely misunderstood as a result. The conflict was based not solely on the terrorist attacks of 2001 but also on decades of bipartisan consensus on foreign policy.

As President Jimmy Carter phrased it in 1980, "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." Since that time, every U.S. president has been prepared to protect American interests in the Middle East. Recognizing the risks of Saddam Hussein, President Bill Clinton considered attacking Iraq doubtless for the same reasons as George W. Bush - concluding however that such a war would lack popular support.

The long-term challenge of the Iraqi dictator was his desire to control the vast resources of the Persian Gulf. He rightly saw that the acquisition of a nuclear capability would give him a free hand throughout the region, and a dominant role in the global economy.

This discussion shows that -- from President Bush's own words, to those of military experts on the origins of war in 2003 -- U.S. policy was not only predicated on larger strategic rationales of both human rights and deterrence, but that the administration was indeed working from a longstanding tradition in American foreign policy as well.

But what's especially bothersome is the Daily Kos passage above suggesting "the perniciousness of American exceptionalism." This concept is fundamentally at issue in leftist foreign policy in Washington, and it's the current administration's abandonment of America's foundational uniqueness that is placing Americans and citizens of the world at greater risk than in other other time in decades.

As I've said many times before, it won't be too soon when American voters reject Barack Neville Hussein and his Democratic (Socialist) Party at the ballot box. In the meanwhile, conservatives can gather strength in the increasing indicators showing that the current administration's days are indeed numbered.

Added: See also Common Sense Political Thought, "The Difference Between Theory and Practice."