Keeping it Real on Social Security and Medicare

Scott "Social Scientist" Lemieux, at Lawyers, Guns and Money, perfectly demonstrates that membership in the "reality-based community" is all about living in the utopian make-believe "reality" of postmodern ideology.

Heads exploded today LGM in response to Robert Samuelson's latest column on Social Security and Medicare, "Let Them Go Bankrupt, Soon." Why bankruptcy? These entitlements are inevitably insolvent and thus fundamentally unsustainable:

When the trustees of Social Security and Medicare recently reported on the economic outlook for these programs, the news coverage was universally glum. The recession had made everything worse. Social Security, Medicare face insolvency sooner, headlined The Wall Street Journal. Actually, these reports were good news. Better would have been Social Security, Medicare risk bankruptcy in 2010.

It's increasingly obvious that Congress and the president (regardless of which party is in power) will deal with the political stink bomb of an aging society only if forced. And the most plausible means of compulsion would be for Social Security and Medicare to go bankrupt: trust funds run dry; promised benefits exceed dedicated payroll taxes. The sooner this happens, the better.

That the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you will find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social Security and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while dedicated taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap is $45.8 trillion. (All figures are expressed in "present value," a fancy term for "today's dollars.")

Samuelson's argument isn't that controversial, actually. Talk of the entitlement "time bomb" is not new. That policymakers keep kicking the can down the road is irresponsible, if unexceptional. It currently takes taxpayer contributions from 2.5 workers to finance the Social Security benefits of one recipient. In 40 years we'll have only two workers supporting one retiree. The facts are staring us in the face. I teach social policy every semester. According to George Edwards, in his non-partisan textbook, Government in America (2008):

About 75 million baby boomers will start retiring in about 2010. Chances are, they will live longer and healthier lives than any generation before - and run up even bigger costs for the Social Security system and its health care cousin, Medicare ... There are some - President George Bush is among them - who think Social Security needs reform. It is a time bomb, most experts think, ticking away, moving inexorably toward the day when the costs will exceed income ...

The text notes that at some point, likely 2038 (one year later than Samuelson's estimate), expenditures will exceed payouts, and the government will have to siphon increasingly large amounts of funding from other federal programs to cover the deficit.

But that's just my textbook, written by some of the most prominent political scientists in American governmental studies. They can hardly be attacked as embarrasing "hacks," as is Samuelson by Scott "Social Scientist" Lemieux.

But for good measure, let's check in with Daniel Shea, another political scientist who's got a brand-new textbook out, Living Democracy:

Everyone talks about the crisis that is coming to Social Security and Medicare - is it real? Left unchecked, spending for Social Security will account for 6.4 percent of GDP by 2050, and Medicare and Medicaid will use a combined 21.9 percent, for a total of 27.3. Over the past fifty years, total government spending has averaged 18.5 percent of GDP. What this means is that by 2050, these programs will absorb 150 percent of average government spending without appropriating a penny for food stamps, defense, science, space exploration, or anything else - including interest on the federal debt, which is projected to average 2 percent of GDP in coming years.

Something's got to give. You can't run an annual deficit equal to 18 percent of GDP without wrecking the economy. Solving this problem will require either huge tax increases or huge benefit cuts - or some combination of the two. With our aging workforce, this seems to foreshadow some sort of generational conflict, and conflict that might be eased in part if the immigration of working-age foreign-born people continues to surge and more of them become legal, Social Security-paying workers. Boston University economist Laurance Kotlikoff and financial columnist Scott Burns have called this confluence of more retirees and fewer workers "the comuing generational storm" ....

This generational storm is still decades down the road and may break just when you are ready to retire ...

As you can see from mainstream political analysis, Robert Samuelson's hardly an extremist on Social Security and Medicare. But Scott "Social Scientist" Lemieux's too blinded by his own ideology - and too economically illiterate - to know better. It's no coincidence that Lemieux is joined by Bruce Webb at Angry Bear, "Hacktackular! Samuelson on Social Security."

But as this essay shows, the genuine "hacks" are those idiots in the left-blogosphere who claim to know something about entitlements, but only end up showing their abject incompetence in addressing complicated policy issues requiring something other than, er, partisan hackery.

On the Relevance of Intramural Ideological Disputes

Or, "How I learned to stop worrying and love the f-bomb ..."

Robert Stacy McCain explains:

Whatever the relevance of intramural ideological disputes (or concern about the tone and content of the GOP "message") to the current situation, henceforth propagation of false understanding by Republican commentators must be identified and denounced as nothing but what it is: Aid and comfort to the Democrats in the electoral showdown that is now less than 18 months away ...

Defeatist rhetoric and mistaken analyses offered by "Republicans," tending to impugn, demoralize and confuse the conservative grassroots, can only be considered as objectively pro-Democrat. Such incorrect understandings of the political situation cannot be ignored, but must be actively repudiated. Idiots have the right to free speech, and we have the right to call them idiots.

Powell Says G.O.P. Needs More Inclusion

The video below shows Colin Powell, on Face the Nation, discussing the legal politics of Guantanamo and enhanced interrogations. The full CBS video is here.

What's getting more attention is Powell's call for the Republican Party to be "more inclusive." The New York Times has the story, "Answering Critics, Powell Says G.O.P. Needs Change."

See also, "Powell Defends GOP Credentials, Calls for More Inclusive Party" (via Memeorandum):

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell took on Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh Sunday, shooting down their accusations that he had abandoned the Republican Party while continuing to dish out advice to the GOP.

Powell, speaking on CBS' "Face the Nation," touted his Republican credentials and urged his party to be more moderate and inclusive. He was answering back after Limbaugh called on him to join the Democrats and Cheney said he thought Powell had already left the GOP.

"Rush will not get his wish and Mr. Cheney was misinformed. I am still a Republican," Powell said, noting that he "oted solidly for Republican candidates" for president for 20 years, spent 10 years of his life serving in Republican administrations and spoke at two GOP conventions.

"You know, neither (Cheney) nor Rush Limbaugh are members of the membership committee of the Republican Party. I get to make my decision on that," Powell said. "And so I will continue to work in a way that I think is helpful to the country and helpful to the party."

Colin Powell is a great American. I think HE was misinformed in voting for Barack Obama, and his own personal history belies the notion that the GOP lacks inclusion or fails to provide opportunities for qualified minorities.

Actually, it's something of a shame for him to be getting into these debates at this point.

But check Noel Sheppard on seeing the big picture, "Will Media Notice Powell Defended Bush and Agreed With Cheney?"

Obama's Plan for the Destruction of Israel

The title is ominious: "U.S. Presses Israel to End Expansion of Settlements; Bush Pact Complicates Issue." But when you dig down into it, the facts indicate that the settlements aren't the issue. What we're seeing is the Obama administration's plan for the destruction of Israel.

According to Carl in Jerusalem, the "secret" pact in question is the set of guarantees made by the George W. Bush administration holding "that Israel would be allowed to keep the large 'settlement blocs' in any 'final status' agreement with the 'Palestinians'."

But now President Obama is determined to abandon established U.S. policy to push a "peace" plan that would not only rescind previous guarantees to the Jewish state, but would privilege Palestinian interests above those of the Israeli people. The settlement issue is a smokescreen: "Settlements are not the reason that the diplomatic process failed ... Even when Israel evacuated swathes of land, terrorism continued. Even when we uprooted communities, all we got in return was 'Hamastan'." No, Washington now seeks an accommodation with Israel that would eventually deprive Jerusalem of its historic right to exist. And Israel-bashers are twirling their mustaches with glee.

As Caroline Glick notes, with respect to both Palestine and the Iranian threat:

BY MAKING the achievement of the unachievable goal of making peace between Israel and the Palestinians through the establishment of a Palestinian terror state the centerpiece of his Middle East agenda, Obama is able to cast Israel as the region's villain. This aim is reflected in the administration's intensifying pressure on Israel to destroy Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.

In portraying Jews who live in mobile homes on barren hilltops in Judea and Samaria - rather than Iranian mullahs who test ballistic missile while enriching uranium and inciting genocide - as the greatest obstacle to peace, the Obama administration not only seeks to deflect attention away from its refusal to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is also setting Israel up as the fall guy who it will blame after Iran emerges as a nuclear power.

Obama's intention to unveil his Middle East peace plan in the course of his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4, like his decision to opt out of visiting Israel in favor of visiting a Nazi death camp, make it clear that he does not perceive Israel as a vital ally, or even as a partner in the peace process he wishes to initiate. Israeli officials were not consulted about his plan. Then, too, from the emerging contours of his plan, it is clear that he will be offering something that no Israeli government can accept.

According to media reports, Obama's plan will require Israel to withdraw its citizens and its military to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines. It will provide for the free immigration of millions of Israel-hating Arabs to the Palestinian state. And it seeks to represent all of this as in accord with Israel's interests by claiming that after Israel renders itself indefensible, all 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (including Iran) will "normalize" their relations with Israel. In short, Obama is using his peace plan to castigate the Netanyahu government as the chief destabilizing force in the region.

During his meeting with Obama, Netanyahu succeeded in evading the policy traps Obama set for him. Netanyahu reserved Israel's right to act independently against Iran and he conceded nothing substantive on the Palestinian issue.

While itself no small achievement, Netanyahu's successful deflection of Obama's provocations is not a sustainable strategy. Already on Tuesday the administration began coercing Israel to toe its line on Iran and the Palestinians by engaging it in joint "working groups."

Then, too, the government's destruction of an outpost community in Judea on Thursday was perceived as Israeli buckling to US pressure. And it doubtlessly raised expectations for further expulsions in the near future.

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

10 Things Americans Should Know About World War II

Rick Atkinson has a cool Memorial Day column at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "10 Things Americans Should Know About World War II."

Keep in mind his 5th point when we hear continuing attacks on the Bush administration's initial war planning in Iraq:

The U.S. Army for a long time after we entered the war was not very good. Part of the WWII mythology is that all the brothers were valiant and all the sisters were virtuous. War is the most human of enterprises, and it reveals every human foible and frailty, as well as human virtues: cowardice and tomfoolery, as well as courage and sacrifice. The Greatest Generation appellation is nonsense.

In the first couple years of American involvement the Army was burdened with clearly inferior equipment and commanders. Those first couple years of war required a sifting out, an evaluation at all levels within the Army of the competent from the incompetent, the physically fit from the unfit.

It has sometimes been argued that in an even fight, when you matched one American battalion or regiment against a German battalion or regiment, the Germans tended to be superior, the better fighters. But who said anything about an even fight? Global war is a clash of systems. What matters is which system can generate the combat power needed to prevail, whether it's in the form of the 13,000 Allied warplanes available on D-day; the 10:1 American advantage in artillery ammunition often enjoyed against the Germans; or the ability to design, build and detonate an atomic bomb. What matters is which system can produce the men capable of organizing the shipping, the rail and truck transportation, the stupendous logistical demands of global war.

Germany could not cross the English Channel, which is only 21 miles wide, to invade Britain. The United States projected power across the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Pacific and into Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Power-projection, adaptability, versatility, ingenuity, preponderance -- these are salient characteristics of the U.S. Army in WWII.

'Easy Rider' in 40th Anniversary Screening at L.A.'s Nuart Theatre

If you never saw it at the movies (40 years ago), Easy Rider's now playing a one-week limited engagement at the Nuart Theatre in West Los Angeles.

For some feeling, check out this SlipShotFilms production of "Born To Be Wild and Easy Rider":

Here's the blurb from Nuart's homepage:

A landmark road film, Easy Rider chronicles the search for freedom by two motorcycle-riding drifters (Peter Fonda and director Dennis Hopper). After closing a big-time coke deal in Los Angeles, the two bikers "head out on the highway," trying to discover the real America on the way to Mardi Gras in New Orleans. They cruise Monument Valley, spend some time at a commune and try to deal with the negative vibes their hippie regalia provokes in most of the citizenry. Thrown into a southern jail, they meet up with an alcoholic lawyer (Jack Nicholson) who gets them out and then joins them on their liberating journey. Includes cameos by Karen Black and record producer Phil Spector, as well as a legendary soundtrack featuring "Born To Be Wild" by Steppenwolf, plus songs by The Byrds, The Band, Jimi Hendrix, The Electric Prunes and more. An Academy Award nominee for Best Supporting Actor (Nicholson) and Best Original Screenplay (Fonda, Hopper and novelist Terry Southern).

See also Betsy Sharkey's "Critic's Pick," at the Los Angeles Times.

Full Metal Saturday: Marisa Miller

It's time again for Full Metal Saturday! I'd like to begin this entry with a dedication to Amy Proctor and Cassandra at Villainous Company. These two beautiful blogging friends have reminded me that it's fine and dandy to enjoy the eye candy, but Rule 5 bloggers must also respect both women and their dignity!

And with that, let me present this week's lovely lady, SoCal's own Marisa Miller. As readers can see, Marisa's featured on the latest cover of Shape (and her homepage is NSFW!):

I remember recently seeing Marisa at TigerHawk's blog. He links to Sports Illustrated's 2008 Swimsuit Gallery, where Marisa is featured.

Checking around the web, Saber Point's getting in some Rule 5 hotness with Kim Kardashian." Also, TrogloPundit's wholesome milk-drinking showcase of Danica Patrick will rev every guy's motor!

Plus, don't miss my friend Dana at CSPT, and his entry this week, "Rule 5 Blogging." And Private Pigg directs us to Maxim's Not 100 for 2009! Jimmie Bise has got some babe blogging going on, "It’s FMJRA Saturday."

On the ladies' side, Suzanna Logan fills us up with some Adriana Lima hotness. (Suzanna introduced us to Becky Brindle last week).

And Pundette's got a "Saturday Linkfest." She's joined by Carol at No Sheeples Here!, who goes all out with, a "Memorial Day Weekend Full Metal Jacket Reach-Around." I don't see any beefcake this week, but I'm linking to Fausta’s Blog anway!

See also, Jordan at Generation Patriot. The Classical Liberal gets hot with, "Hayden Panettiere Presents Rule 5 Saturday!" And Paco Enterprise's got the global goods, with "Rule 5 Goes International!" Plus, The Daley Gator's got, "Saturday full metal jacket reach around."

Always smokin' is GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD, especially today's examination of "California - Rest in Peace!"

And don't forget to go to the "source," Smitty at The Other McCain! He's stoked Technorati's functioning adequately in, "Finally, My Joy Returns. Ahhhh!"

If you missed it, check out my steaming entry last week, "Full Metal Saturday: Jessica Simpson." And here's the obligatory link to Glenn Reynolds!

Exit quote for the day: "Call me when “conservatives” are ready to get serious. Because as it stands, our high-traffic spokespeople seem content to play by the left’s rules while humping each other for traffic."

With Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 8th Regiment, U.S. Marines, in Afghanistan

This piece in today's Wall Street Journal shows why troop numbers are so important in modern anti-insurgency conflicts: "Stalemate: A single company of U.S. Marines is slugging it out with the Taliban in Afghanistan’s toughest ghost town. The battle shows how limited troop numbers have hurt the war—and why the U.S. is changing its strategy."

The report is from the town of Zad, in Helmand Province:

The inability of the Marines to dominate the area is an extreme example of how limited troop numbers, especially in the country’s strategically vital south, have hampered the U.S. ability to eradicate the Taliban threat. The U.S. and NATO-led coalition has easily defeated the Taliban in battle, but struggled to prevent insurgents returning to towns and villages across the country.

As part of President Barack Obama’s Afghan “surge,” the military has ordered 21,000 new troops to Afghanistan, bringing the total to around 60,000. The beefed-up force is a central element of the military’s new counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan, which aims to replicate the successes of the Bush surge in Iraq, in particular the way it was able to both “clear” important areas of insurgents and “hold” the territory long enough for the government to solidify its position.

The strategic shift gelled earlier this month when Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked for the resignation of Gen. David McKiernan, the Pentagon’s top general in Afghanistan, in a bid to further instill counterinsurgency tactics throughout the war. The successor, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is a former Green Beret who recently commanded the military’s secretive special operations forces in Iraq.

Still, the new approach won’t bring enough troops to put overwhelming force into every hotspot, suggesting that Now Zad and other pockets won’t see relief any time soon. Afghanistan’s terrain, replete with inaccessible valleys and remote villages, exacerbates the shortfall.

“We’re still only at half of what we had in Iraq,” says Col. Greg Julian, the military’s chief spokesman in Afghanistan. “In counterinsurgency doctrine, it should really be a 10-to-one ratio of population [to troops], and we’re nowhere near that.”

Soon after the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001, charities from the United Nations and European Union installed clean-water wells and a mother-child health clinic in Now Zad. But by 2007, fighting between insurgents and small British and Gurkha contingents prompted the estimated 10,000 to 30,000 residents to flee. An Estonian force joined the British before a company of U.S. Marines arrived last year. None was big enough to clear the town of insurgents.

The Marines here now, Lima Co. of 3rd Battalion, 8th Regiment, number fewer than 300 men and are currently training their replacements. Being a sideshow to the main effort has meant a daily routine of dangerous patrols through a no man’s land littered with land mines, all the while accepting the fact that at best they’ll go home next month with a tie.

Matthew Nolen, a 27-year-old Navy corpsman from Memphis, Tenn., insists that each man on his patrols carry two Velcro tourniquets. The assumption is that if a Marine steps on a mine, he’ll likely lose both legs at once, and the corpsman will have two arterial bleeds to stem. Some infantrymen wear tourniquets loose around their ankles, like bracelets, so they can get at them quickly.

“It’s not for me,” said Sgt. Roy Taylor, a 23-year-old squad leader from New Orleans. “It’s for the guy next to me.”

For more on Lima Company, see Steve Moyer, "Combat Camera: US Marines Operate in Now Zad, Afghanistan."

Pelosi Galore!

God, this is too good!

Via The Politico, Nancy Pelosi as Pussy Galore!

Taylor Marsh is not pleased (and she's "hyperventilating"):

At the end it says “Democrats Galore.” Imposed with a naked woman behind the tag line. Get it? Subtle it is not. But check out the video at around :40 seconds; a split screen that says it all. “Pussy Galore” is shown with “Starring Nancy Pelosi the Speaker” over “Pussy’s” image.

But hey, it’s good to have a sense of humor about these things right? And who doesn’t love the Bond films, especially those Sean Connery classics?

The RNC, however, is not celebrating the women in these classic movies, even by 1960’s standards. Nor are they empowering women through utilizing one of the the cunning female villains who parade around in them by equating her with Speaker Pelosi. I shouldn’t have to spell it out any further, though if the RNC doesn’t have women in their leadership ranks or men who get this stuff and know bad taste when they see it, the Rush, Newt and Cheney Party (as they were aptly called on “Hardball” yesterday) is truly nothing more than a frat boy institution. No offense to fraternities meant.

That a woman, let alone Speaker of the House, should never be hinted to in any public way through the use of “Pussy” insinuations should be obvious. That this is being used by a once major political party in the 21st century is stunning.

Well, it's not like they're attacking her as an evil lesbian or anything!

Fist Bumps for World Peace!

It had to be one of the strangest Naval Academy commencement ceremonies ever. Former GOP presidential candidate John McCain and his wife Cindy were in attendance for their son's graduation:

Obama spoke before a graduating class of 1,036 that included John Sidney McCain IV - son of Obama's rival in the 2008 presidential race, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and fourth in a line of McCain Naval Academy graduates. About 30,000 attended the ceremony in Annapolis, Md.

"President Obama fist-bumps with a graduate at the Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium during the graduation ceremony at the U.S. Naval Academy" (Source).

"President Barack Obama fistbumps a graduating Midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy graduation ceremony in Annapolis, Md., Friday, May 22, 2009" (Source).

And here's Obama comments on American "straying" from our values:

"When America strays from our values, it not only undermines the rule of law, it alienates us from our allies, it energizes our adversaries and it endangers our national security and the lives of our troops."

But hey, if fist bumps are good enough for Hugo Chavez, they're good enough for our naval midshipmen!

Open Your Hearts and Minds to Abortion!

There's some buzz this morning on Barack Obama's recent statement that the U.S. should "reduce the number of women seeking abortions" but not the number of actual abortions!

Check the links at Memeorandum for more. But since the debate on torture's also the rage this weekend, check out the tortured logic of this pro-choicer's letter to the editor at the Los Angeles Times:

Whether members of the pro-life movement realize it or not, they now have a president who actually wants to do something about the number of abortions performed in America. However, if they fail to moderate their self-righteous, self- defeating tactics and continue to try to impose their will on those who disagree with them, without discussion or compromise, they will get exactly what they got from eight years of the pro-life-friendly Bush administration -- nothing.

Wake up: President Obama wants to reduce and, to the extent that it is possible, end abortions in America. But it is you who protest so vehemently and yet accomplish so little.

Obama is right; open your hearts and your minds if justice for the unborn is what you really seek.

Eugene Sison

San Dimas

I guess that's the pro-choice version of "Obey Obama!"

Do You Know Your Enemy?

Thirty years ago Green Day would have been hip, but if you'd seen the The Sex Pistols, you'd have been there, done that. Get PISSED DESTROY! and all that, you know?

Still, give it up for the these guys anyway. They've made punk more popular than ever. I saw them last week on SNL, and yesterday on GMA's summer concert series. Strange how anarchy plays with the masses? Here's Green Day's, "Know Your Enemy":

Green Day - New Music - More Music Videos

The 75 Movies Every Man Should See

Via Glenn Reynolds, check Esquire's feature, "The 75 Movies Every Man Should See."

Here's this on one of my favorites, Runaway Train:

Existential action flicks are tough tricks to pull. Turns out the secret is two escaped cons and a girl on a runaway train in Alaska, chased by an evil warden in a helicopter. Easy.

Here's the existential finale:

Eric “Mancow” Muller: The Biggest Pussy

You know, I watched the video, and I've got to say: If you're going to talk tough, you should be tough. And Eric "Mancow" Muller is not so tough.

The lefties love him, though. He's more popular than Rock Hudson at a West Hollywood coming out party.

But let's be clear. It's easy to see why Muller would gladly agree to have water poured over his face? He wouldn't be permanently maimed. He'd still have all of his fingernails, not to mention his fingers. No one would be gouging his eyes, nor slicing off his tongue. His arms would not be pressed into a wood-shredder.

And here's this, from John Hawkins:

Waterboarding is hardly torture. It does not maim, cause permanent physical damage,or result in death. It merely simulates the sensation of drowning and having no control over your ability to end the encounter for very brief periods of time. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was subjected to this interrogation technique and was able to resist much longer than would have been expected from an individual who had not been trained to resist waterboarding. This is an indication that our enemies are being prepared for the possibility of being captured.

Britney Spears Bikini Pics!

It's a slow traffic day, so let's heat things up around here with some Britney Spears bikini shots! Via John Hawkins and Conservative Grapevine, check out the whole slideshow, "Britney Spears Bikini Pictures are ... Hot":

Beats waterboarding any day!

I'll just make this a preview of Full Metal Saturday by linking to my blogging allies: Ann Althouse, The Blog Prof, Dana at CSPT, Dan Collins, Dan Riehl, Glenn Reynolds, Jimmie Bise, Little Miss Attila, Moe Lane, Monique Stuart, No Sheeples Here!, Private Pigg, The Rhetorican, R.S. McCain, Saber Point, Suzanna Logan, TrogloPundit, and William Jacobson.

I'll have more hot neocon blogging tomorrow!

California Gay Marriage Ruling Due Tuesday

From the Los Angeles Times, "California Supreme Court to Rule on Proposition 8 Tuesday":

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will rule Tuesday on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that resurrected a ban on same-sex marriage.

The ruling, which will be posted at 10 a.m., will also determine whether an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages will continue to be recognized by the state.

The Court is expected to uphold the intitiative. It's the gay radical backlash that's going to be interesting:

Image: Day of Decision:

LGBT people and our allies anxiously await the California Supreme Court decision either affirming or rejecting the hateful anti-gay Proposition 8 ... If we organize every sizeable city to have a "Day of Decision" action, that, in and of itself, will send a powerful message that our community will not sit idly by if the hateful Propostion 8 is allowed to stand."

Hmm ... That sounds familiar. Show trials anyone?

Check back Tuesday. As always, I'll have full coverage ...

**********

UPDATE: This is story is now a thread at Memeorandum, "State High Court to Rule Tuesday on Prop. 8."

America Owes Germany No Apology for Dresden

There's some discussion online today that's one more reminder why I really dislike the Obama administration. From Pamela Geller, "Obama to Apologize to Germany for WWII." President Obama will visit Dresden during a June European tour that coincides with the D-Day anniversary. The location is significant to any student of World War II. In February 1945, Allied bombers launched Europe's most devasting incendiary air raids on the city. The resulting firestorm killed an estimated 25,000–35,000 people. The Dresden campaign is a key example of "total war" doctrine in an unconditional conflict, and Americans have no reason to apologize.

Pamela cites this passage from Free Republic:

The symbolic significance of a visit to Dresden by the American president — especially one undertaken in connection with a D-Day commemoration in France — may be missed by some Americans, but it is absolutely unmistakable for the German public. For Germans, Dresden is the symbol bar none of German suffering at the hands of the Allies. The city was heavily bombed by British and American air forces in February 1945, toward the end of the war. According to the most recent estimates of professional historians, anywhere from 18,000 to at most 25,000 persons died in the attacks. These numbers come from a historical commission established by the city of Dresden itself. But far higher numbers — ranging into the hundreds of thousands — have long circulated in Germany and beyond. The bombing of Dresden is commonly described as a “war crime” in German discussions.

It's always a cruel oddity to see German nationals criticizing the Western Allies for "war crimes." But be sure to see the remainder of Pamela's essay. She posts photographs from America's military cemeteries in Europe. And she adds, "The total number of Americans buried at the cemeteries above is 104,366 -- a mere fraction of those who died liberating Europe -- and yet an American president who confuses arrogance with leadership feels the need to apologize in Europe for the country he obviously holds in contempt."

Pictured: The Ardennes American Cemetery and Memorial in Belgium:

The approach drive at Ardennes American Cemetery and Memorial in Belgium leads to the memorial, a stone structure bearing on its façade a massive American eagle and other sculptures. Within are the chapel, three large wall maps composed of inlaid marbles, marble panels depicting combat and supply activities and other ornamental features. Along the outside of the memorial, 462 names are inscribed on the granite Tablets of the Missing. Rosettes mark the names of those since recovered and identified. The façade on the far (north) end that overlooks the burial area bears the insignia, in mosaic, of the major U.S. units that operated in northwest Europe in World War II.

The 90-acre cemetery contains the graves of 5,329 of our military dead, many of whom died in the 1944 Ardennes winter offensive (Battle of the Bulge).

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

Obama Sucks at Transcending Our Ideological Divisions

Carol at No Sheeples Here! points us to some anti-Obama grumbling at Daily Kos, "Obama Now Officially Sucks."

That post takes issue with the Obama administration's refusal to rekindle Valerie Plame's lawsuit against Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Richard Armitage. But Carol's Photoshop applies to the Daily Kos program all around. For example, note the pushback from Meteor Blades against Obama's speech yesterday, "Moving Forward REQUIRES Looking Back":

... Guantánamo is more than a symbol. It's representative of a whole system which says it's appropriate to permit indeterminate detention without trials and/or trials that allow inadmissible evidence to be used to convict special categories of special people. So far, we have yet to hear either the President or more than a few others in the Democratic Party challenge that system at its core.

And here's Joan McCarter at Daily Kos fudging the vengeance rationale:

The election was not an end to the debate. We are not re-fighting any debate because the debate is ongoing, however much we would like to move on. The very fact that President Obama had to schedule this speech today to pre-empt Dick Cheney is proof of that. Anger is not the primary fuel for those of us who want to see accountability for what the previous administration did in our names. The fuel is a commitment to justice.

Joan's right: This is debate will not end. But not for the reasons leftists think. For all of their tough talk and faux moral outrage, leftists do not really believe we are at war. And Barack Obama not only exacerbates and prolongs the debate, he weakens America's security to boot. As Christian Brose notes:

The debate over "enhanced" interrogation, the rule of law, and national security will never end. But I fear the tragedy is just beginning. Before 9/11, America's counter-terrorism policies suffered from excessive caution and risk-aversion. After 9/11, that pendulum swung too far in the other direction, toward what Cheney once called "the dark side." Now that pendulum is swinging right back toward the other extreme again -- not because Obama wants it to, or believes it should, or mandated that it must in his policies, but because of unnecessary actions he took without adequate "foresight," and the manner in which he took them. The professionals entrusted to keep America safe now work in fear of taking the risks that their jobs entail. And the people they're charged with protecting still don't have the facts to reach a political consensus on this issue (and likely never will, even if Cheney were to get his way).

And here's Andrew McCarthy, via Memeorandum:

President Obama’s speech is the September 10th mindset trying to come to grips with September 11th reality. It is excruciating to watch as the brute facts of life under a jihadist threat, which the president is now accountable for confronting, compel him forever to climb out of holes dug by his high-minded campaign rhetoric — the reversals on military detention, commission trials, prisoner-abuse photos, and the like.

The need to castigate his predecessor, even as he substantially adopts the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policy, is especially unbecoming in a president who purports to transcend our ideological divisions.

So, yes, May 21, 2009, is an important date in our ongoing divisions over national security.

May 21st will go down in the history of this administration national security policies as establishing the line of demarcation between those (the Republicans) who would genuinely secure the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and those (the Democrats) who make allies with them.

See also, Arthur Herman, "The Gitmo Myth and the Torture Canard."

Secretary Gates Hails Zachary Boyd's "Psychological Warfare"

Specialist Zachary Boyd of Fort Worth, Texas, made the cover of the New York Times on May 12:

I saw it first at GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD. Now it turns out that Boyd's pink "I Love New York" boxers have garnered the attention of the Secretary of Defense, "Gates Hails Soldier Snapped in Pink Boxer Shorts":

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday praised an Army soldier in eastern Afghanistan who drew media attention this month after rushing to defend his post from attack while wearing pink boxer shorts and flip-flops, Reuters reported.

Gates said in prepared remarks that he wants to meet the soldier and shake his hand the next time he visits Afghanistan.

"Any soldier who goes into battle against the Taliban in pink boxers and flip-flops has a special kind of courage," Gates said in a speech to be delivered in New York.

"I can only wonder about the impact on the Taliban. Just imagine seeing that: a guy in pink boxers and flip-flops has you in his cross-hairs. What an incredible innovation in psychological warfare," he said.

More at the link.

IBD Editorial: Cheney Would Have KO'd Obama in First Round - UPDATED!!

I watched Dick Cheney's AIE speech this afternoon. The video is here.

But don't miss the Cheney/Obama comparisons at Memeorandum. Andrew "Hissy Fit" Sullivan calls Cheney's speech "despicable and disgraceful." And that's likely to be the extent of the left's atttacks on the former Vice President. We'll naturally see a few "dark side" slurs thrown in here and there. See Firedoglake, for example, "Dick Cheney: Nothing is More Consistent with American Values than Torture."

I like IBD's ringside analogy much better, in any case:

President Obama and former Vice President Cheney verbally sparred over how best to fight terrorism in the post-9/11 world. If it had been a real fight, it would have been stopped in the first round.

See also, Astute Bloggers, "Dick vs. Dickhead"; Cold Fury, "No Wonder They Hate Him So Insanely"; Dan Collins, "Dick Cheney’s Gravitas"; Flopping Aces, "Dueling Transcripts: Obama’s Continuing Campaign vs. Cheney, the Voice of Reason"; Jim Treacher, "Cheney + Haiku = Cheneyku"; Neptunus Lex, "Obama v. Cheney"; Robert Stacy McCain, "Cheney Tortures Pelosi"; Pundette, "Cheney Wins"; William Jacobson, "Obama Supports Indefinite Detention Without Trial"; The Rhetorican, "A Sort of Backtracking"; Shadow Gov't, "Fear, Facts, and the Terror Debate"; and Wizbang, "The Left is Coming Unglued ..."

**********

UPDATE: Toby Hardin adopts the "pugilistic metaphor" in, "The 10 Punches Dick Cheney Landed on Barack Obama's Jaw," via Memeorandum.

Albuquerque Mom Suffocates Son, Has Second Thoughts, Performs CPR, Changes Mind, Suffocates Him Again, Buries Him in Playground Sand

A poster-mom for the death penalty?

"Albuquerque mother charged with killing 3-year-old son and burying him in the playground sand":

A mother playing with her children at a park spotted a little black sneaker sticking out of the sand underneath the playground equipment. Figuring a youngster had lost his shoe, she bent down to pick it up. It was strangely heavy.

She had made a ghastly discovery: a dead little boy, buried in the sand.

For nearly a week, who the toddler was, how he died, and who put him there were a chilling mystery until Thursday, when a drawing of the youngster circulated by police led to the arrest of a young mother on murder charges.

Albuquerque police said Tiffany Toribio, 23, confessed to suffocating her 3-year-old son, Tyruss "Ty" Toribio, as he slept on the climbing gym — a crime so cold-blooded that neighbors struggled to comprehend it, and even veteran officers became choked up ....

The police chief said Toribio told detectives that she suffocated her son in Alvarado Park before dawn on May 13 by putting her hand over his mouth and nose. She said she had second thoughts and performed CPR on the boy, resuscitating him, but reconsidered and smothered him again. Investigators said she then buried him under the climbing gym's hanging bridge, where the body was found two days later.

I'm betting the woman is a registered Democrat and voted for Barack Obama.

The beautiful boy's photo is here.

Dick Cheney at American Enterprise Institute

Here's Dick Cheney's lecture at the American Enterprise Institute today. His speech is simply riveting. His continued clarity on the exigencies of our national security is unparalleled. His understanding of our enemies is sage and statesmanlike. His indictment of the Democratic Party's counter-terror policies ... devastating. The text of the speech is here. Do yourself a favor: Take the time to absorb this presentation completely:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Pete Hegseth, William Kristol, and Mitt Romney compare Cheney's speech to President Obama's address on national security at the National Archives this morning.

Here's this from Romney:

Barack Obama is having a hard time going from politician to president. His speech and his policies have one foot in campaign mode and another in presidential mode. He struggles to explain how he is keeping faith with the liberal advocates who promoted his campaign but in doing so, he breaks faith with the interests of the American people. When it comes to protecting the nation, we have a conflicted president. And his address today was more tortured than the enhanced interrogation techniques he decries.

More at Memeorandum.

California Seeks Federal Bailout

Today's banner headline at the Los Angeles Times reads, "State Braces for Brutal Cuts: Governor Sees a Voter Mandate for His Plan to Slash Billions."

That's dishonest, actually. Governor Schwarzenegger wasn't really planning to "slash billions." In exchange for getting Proposition 1A on the ballot, Schwarzenegger made a devil's bargain with the California Teachers Association. The deal would have allowed the union to raid $9.3 billion from the rainy-day account that Proposition 1A was going to set up!

The voters said hasta la vista, baby!

Now Schwarzenegger and State Treasurer Bill Lockyer are seeking a federal bailout, "California Wants U.S. Treasury to Backstop Loans":

First came the banks and insurance companies. Then the auto industry. Now, with California on the verge of financial collapse, state leaders are demanding an unprecedented federal rescue of their own.

They say they need the Obama administration to step in and back billions of dollars in emergency loans. If Washington fails to do so, the state could start running out of cash in July and then would have to stop paying huge amounts of its bills. That, in turn, could set off dangerous ripples throughout the economy, state officials say.

The argument is familiar. Just like AIG and General Motors, California says it is too big to fail.

That's what Schwarzenegger's Tuesday junket to Washington was really all about! Get those Geithner bailout funds flowing for California!

Moral hazard here we come! (Sung to "California, Here I Come".)

And don't forget what Megan McArdle wrote yesterday, "If Uncle Sugar bails out California, California will not fix its problems":

California will go bankrupt, muni and state debt will spike, the federal government will backstop humanitarian programs and very possibly all state and local debt, and eventually, California will figure out whether it wants higher taxes or lower spending. But we will not actually make the world a better place by enabling the lunatics in Sacramento to pretend they can have both.

The National Debt Road Trip

You'll get a kick out of this video, "The National Debt Road Trip." Democrats often attack the Bush administration for "turning a surplus into a deficit with tax cuts for the rich and a war for oil." But Barack Obama will "explode" the national debt three times faster George W. Bush:

And check this out, from the original blog post:

In 1994, we voted in a Congress that was remarkably fiscally conservative… so much so that they fought a protracted battle with President Clinton in 1995… trying desperately to get him to agree to a lower budget. The press ripped the Republican Congress (particularly Newt Gingrich) to shreds over it and they ended up conceeding the matter.

On the other side of things, Reagan tried to pass smaller budgets, but the House of Representitives was heavily Democratic and added to his proposed budget until he refused to sign… leading to another government shutdown.

Long story short, the budget is a combined effort of what the president proposes and what the Congress decides, so I thought it was only fair to mention both sides of the equation once the debt really started increasing drastically. This, of course, is only more damning to Bush and Obama, since both of them have (or had) a situation in which their party is in complete control of the government.

Today's Happy Abortion Story

Women who have abortions probably shouldn't write about them online. This morning's case in point is "Mayfly" at Feministing, "I had An Abortion. (And I don't Regret It!)":

I'm 21 years old, I don't have a steady job or a car or my own house, my boyfriend and I have only been together for 6 months, my health is crap, I'm a borderline alcoholic, yada yada yada. So really, bad time to have a baby. I am not a fan of adoption - I've heard far too many horror stories, and I couldn't send my baby out in the world to be raised by someone else who might not be a good parent. If anyone's going to fuck up my kids, it's going to be me!, and given my health and drinking, it would have been likely that I and/or my child would have been seriously damaged by the pregnancy.

So the choice was clear: abortion was the way to go ....

That's my happy abortion story. Does anyone else have one to share?

Reminds me of my earlier post, "Rationalizing Abortion: Paper, Plastic, or Death?"

Hat Tip: Darleen Click.

Google Homepage Celebrates Major Fossil Find - UPDATED!!

The shot below is from The Guardian, "Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find is 'Missing Link' in Human Evolution."

But if you did a Google search yesterday, you must have noticed the search engine's "Ida" logo. Dan Collins has the image here, plus this, "In the latest news, paleontologists examining the contents of the stomach have discovered material that they believe might be Charles Johnson’s spooge. Tests are ongoing." Charles Johnson weighs in here.

See also, "Scientists: 'Missing Link' Fossil Not Worth Media Hype," and "Celebrated Fossil Shown to World."

**********

UPDATE: Charles Johnson responds to this post: "Donald Douglas has been yipping at me like a crack-addled chihuahua for months ..."

Sexual-Harassment Cases at the U.N.

From the Wall Street Journal, "Sexual-Harassment Cases Plague U.N.," via Memeorandum:

The United Nations, which aspires to protect human rights around the world, is struggling to deal with an embarrassing string of sexual-harassment complaints within its own ranks.

Many U.N. workers who have made or faced accusations of sexual harassment say the current system for handling complaints is arbitrary, unfair and mired in bureaucracy. One employee's complaint that she was sexually harassed for years by her supervisor in Gaza, for example, was investigated by one of her boss's colleagues, who cleared him.

Cases can take years to adjudicate. Accusers have no access to investigative reports. Several women who complained of harassment say their employment contracts weren't renewed, and the men they accused retired or resigned, putting them out of reach of the U.N. justice system.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon calls sexual harassment a 'scourge.'
"No matter which way the cases go, they mishandle it," says George G. Irving, a former U.N. attorney who now represents clients on both sides of such cases.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has acknowledged that the system is troubled. "I fully share your concerns regarding sexual harassment and sex discrimination," he wrote in February to Equality Now, a women's rights group that had complained to him. "This scourge remains a high priority issue for me."

On July 1, the U.N. plans to make changes to its internal justice system for handling all employee disputes, including harassment complaints.

Yasmeen Hassan, an Equality Now attorney and former U.N. employee who met with Mr. Ban in December to discuss the issue, says she has "no faith" that the new system will be better, in part because complainants apparently still won't have access to investigative reports to help them with appeals.

The Wall Street Journal examined the U.N.'s handling of five sexual-harassment cases, reviewing hundreds of pages of confidential U.N. documents and interviewing U.N. employees who brought the complaints, supervisors they accused, the lawyers involved and U.N. officials.

It is impossible to know whether sexual harassment is a bigger problem at the U.N., whose global staff numbers about 60,000, than at other large multinational organizations. Officials in the secretary-general's office say they don't know how many sexual-harassment cases are filed at the world body because each U.N. entity tracks cases separately, and confidentially. The secretariat, the U.N.'s main administrative body, says it handles between five and eight cases a year. But those figures include only cases referred to its human-resources department for possible disciplinary action, not complaints that have been dismissed.

Changes to Internal Justice Coming

The planned overhaul of the United Nation's internal justice system is set to take effect July 1. Its goal is to create a more independent and professional system for resolving disputes, including sexual-harassment claims ...

A spokesman for the United Nations Children's Fund, or Unicef, said it has handled 15 complaints since 2004. Five alleged perpetrators in those cases have been dismissed, and two others were issued lifetime employment bans from Unicef because they resigned during investigations. Disciplinary proceedings are being initiated against another accused staffer.

In one important respect, the U.N. handles such problems differently than other large organizations, such as multinational corporations. Many U.N. managers have diplomatic immunity from criminal prosecution or civil litigation. Except when the U.N. lifts immunity, its internal justice system is the only one workers can turn to.

Read the whole thing at the link.

The U.N. bureaucrats are basically above the law. No one is commenting on this at Memeorandum, but I'll update if I see anything good.

Remember all the big U.N. backers in 2003? The "Let Inspections Work" crowd? Die hard defenders or fair weather friends of the U.N.? We'll see ...