Penelope Cruz in Vanity Fair

Some longtime readers might remember my admiration for Penelope Cruz. See, "Penelope Cruz for Best Supporting Actress - UPDATE! CRUZ WINS!." Well it turns out that the November issue of Vanity Fair boasts a feature article on the Spanish actress, "The Passions of Penélope":

With phenomenal performances in some recent winners, including last year’s Woody Allen gem, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, thanks to which she now has an Oscar on her mantel, Cruz is poised to become a new member of the tiny firmament of actresses who began their careers in a language other than English and went on to become truly international stars: the Marlene Dietrichs, Greta Garbos, Ingrid Bergmans, Sophia Lorens, Anouk Aimées, Catherine Deneuves, Jeanne Moreaus, and Liv Ullmanns. Like some of those actresses, Cruz isn’t cookie-cutter pretty—she even has a bit of a schnoz—but her unusual features come together in a memorable aria of real beauty.

Read the whole thing at the link.

Photo Credit: "The Complete Penélope Cruz."

Sarah Palin Going Rogue AutoMotivation

Just a reminder, folks: American Power's initial post, Sarah Palin: Going Rogue: An American Life, provided the awesome motivation for the Sarah Palin AutoMotivation rage that's spreading across the conservative blogosphere. High fives to Troglopundit, who's got another hot post to round-up the AutoMotivational inspirations. He points us to Carolyn Tackett's, "I Would Stay on Her Good Side":

I'm looking forward to reading Palin's book, and you can pre-order Going Rogue at the link.

Sheryl Crow Nude! Well, Actually Topless, for Cover of Los Angeles Times Magazine

Sheryl Crow has posed for a beautiful topless photo-shoot for the cover of the Los Angeles Times Magazine. See her interview, "Every Day is a Winding Road":

Every day when I went into radiation, I was already in despair because my personal life had taken a crash, and I realized I was being forced to show up for myself in a way I never had to before. I couldn’t have someone else do the radiation for me. I couldn’t have a man come in and save me, save my health, prop me up and make me better. It was me who had to lay there on a metal table with this giant alien-looking machine shooting a beam into my chest. And to lay there and think that this was less about the high-tech machinery, although that was scary, and more about my ability to handle the moment—that was empowering. It definitely jerked me into the reality that we come into this world with an incredible strength, and we learn how to be a victim, or we learn how to approach things from the standpoint that, really, things just happen, and there’s an opportunity in every challenge.

Read the whole thing here. It's almost as good as Carrie Prejean bikini pics.

Obama on Health Care: 'Somehow I'm Not Breaking Through...'

From Elizabeth Drew, at the New York Review, "Health Care: Can Obama Swing It?" She's in the tank for Obama, but always worth a read in any case:

The circumstances in which Obama has had to govern have been daunting. The polarization between the political parties is greater than ever before in modern history—particularly as the shrinking Republican Party has come to be dominated by white conservatives, if not radicals, and it enforces discipline more harshly than in the past. Lacking any real leaders now, the Republicans' vacuum has been filled by the likes of talk-show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, whose job it is to be outrageous, and before whom Republican politicians quaver. Those who stray from the conservative orthodoxy are more likely than ever to face a challenge from the right in their next primary. (When he announced in late April that he was switching to the Democratic Party, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania forthrightly said that he didn't think he could win the Republican primary in 2010.)

The goal of the Republicans is not just to oppose Obama's policies they disagree with but to destroy his presidency. Thus the Republican opposition to health care reform is part of a larger agenda, as some Republicans have been unwise enough to admit openly. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina said in July: "If we're able to stop Obama on this [health care], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." Even the Clintons governed in a more felicitous setting; the economy was rebounding and a number of moderate Republicans were willing to make deals with the administration. Now, moderate Republicans are nearly extinct. And back when the Clintons were targets of an effort to undermine Bill Clinton's presidency, the Internet and cable television weren't the instruments for repetitious and vile attacks that they are today.

With nearly all Republicans determined to oppose him, the President is almost totally dependent on the support of his own party, which is itself split between liberals and moderate-to-conservative members.

Moreover, any record of Barack Obama's first year in office has to take note of the fact that this summer, race broke open as an issue. The rise of the "birthers"—who claim he was born outside the US—and the uncommon incivility shown toward Obama by Republicans during his September 9 speech to Congress on health care suggest that a substantial segment on the right doesn't see Obama as a legitimate president. He was not just called a liar by South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson, but also confronted with boos and rude signs; and vicious comments were made about him at the anti-big government (and anti-Obama) rally in Washington the following weekend.

In fact, a number of leading Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner, are concerned about the party's getting too identified, or involved with, the movement on the far right. Vin Weber, a prominent Republican and former member of Congress (and ally of Newt Gingrich when they were backbenchers), says:

There's a fringe out there that's embarrassing. While it can gin up Republican intensity, the party can't get too associated with the nutcases out there. The Republican leadership has a keen awareness of the benefits and the risks of this movement.

It's interesting to read accounts like this because they're exclusively Beltway-centric. It's one of those examples of elite journalists condescending to average folks who just don't know WTF is going on. And I while I omitted the introduction, be sure to check it out. Drew claims that the stimulus is working and she quotes President Obama as saying, "I've got to step up my game in terms of talking to the American people about issues like health care. I've said to myself, somehow I'm not breaking through ..."

Well, actually, the president's getting through just fine. Folks just don't like what they're hearing. See Instapundit, "Fear of Losing Private Health Insurance Trumps ‘Public Option’." Plus, the Blog Prof, "Supposedly Neutral Consumer Reports Running Pro-Obamacare Ads!"

*********

UPDATE: Linked at Ric's Rulez, "The Nostalgia is Getting Strong."

'Oba-Mao' Shirts Hot Sellers for Chinese Revolution's 60th Anniversary!

From the People's Cube, "Obama Shirts More Popular than Che in China":

Rejoice comrades! Our Dear Leader has been immortalized in China in the form of ObaMao shirts. If the ungrateful American public rejects Obama's progressive policies, perhaps he should move his family to China where he is appreciated.

Rachel Maddow Attacks Robert Stacy McCain as White Supremacist

From Pat in Shreveport, "Rachel Maddow Attacks Stacy McCain":

Rachel Maddow on Meet the Press this morning, called Robert Stacy McCain a white supremacist. I'm thinking she's been listening to Charles Johnson a little too much.

The panel was discussing the Sarah Palin book, Going Rogue, when Maddow offers her criticism of Lynn Vincent, Palin's ghostwriter. Maddow explains that Lynn Vincent "co-authored a book with a guy who is widely believed to be , and I believe him to be, a white supremacist. So she's [Palin] chosen Lynn Vincent who has written a book with a white supremacist to write her book." Robert Stacy McCain and Lynn Vincent co-authored Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party in 2006.

Slide on over to 8:00 for the quote.

Go to this link for the video (opens in a new window).

I've already testified with all my strength to Robert Stacy McCain's goodness, fairness, and racial evenhandedness. I know this is not a racist man. But for whatever statements he's made, or that have falsely been attributed to him, the radical left is using Robert Stacy McCain to score libelously cheap political points.

I've noted as well that Charles Johnson's turned his entire blogging platform into destroying the reputations of others. You can check his page right now on a cached Google copy. I don't see the Maddow video up yet, but he's got running headlines including fabulist tales such as "Sarah Palin's Book Ghostwritten by Associate of White Supremacist McCain."

And to be clear, what evidence does anyone need anymore that Charles Johnson is no longer conservative? From Rachel Maddow to Andrew Sullivan, Little Green Footballs is the go-to libel blogging site par excellence.

And don't miss Saber Point, "If You Just HAVE to Visit "Little Green Footballs,' Here's the Way To Do It."

Also, nothing yet on today's news from Robert Stacy McCain, but see yesterday's entry, "Sometimes You Have to Wonder . . .

Eight U.S. Troops Killed in Afghanistan: Aggressive Attack Shows Insurgents Gaining at AF-PAK Border

It's the big foreign policy story this morning. Both NYT and WaPo have major reports. The fighting took place in the remote eastern section of Afghanistan, in Nurestan province. The news reports describe a brazen offensive featuring tribal militias making cross-border raids. From the Washington Post's report:

The U.S. military said it was not immediately clear how many insurgents were involved in the fighting. The attack involved Taliban fighters and appeared to be led by a local commander of the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin insurgent group, which is run by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a former mujaheddin leader during the Soviet war in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

The attack took place in a sparsely populated area of forested mountains near the town of Kamdeysh. The deputy police chief of Nurestan province, Mohammad Farouq, said the insurgents intended to seize control of the Kamdeysh area and that hundreds took part in the fighting. He said more than 20 Afghan soldiers and police have gone missing since the fighting began and may have been taken hostage.

"Americans always want to fight in Afghanistan," said Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, who took credit for the attack by telephone. "If the Americans want to increase their troops, we will increase our fighters as well."

He said the battle began about 6 a.m. Saturday and involved 250 Taliban fighters. He claimed that dozens of American and Afghan soldiers were killed, along with seven Taliban fighters. Mujahid also claimed that the district police chief and intelligence chief were among the hostages, but that could not be confirmed.

I'm reminded of how I felt in November 2006. Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek's liberal but respected foreign policy analyst, published a heavy-duty essay entitled "The Drawdown Option." The piece threw down the gauntlet on the Iraq war. Go all in or get out. My response, amid the frustrations, was to give the U.S. a year to turn things around. We had face over two years of catastrophic danger in the war, and the radical left had long declared the conflict a debacle. I'm not quite there yet on Afghanistan, but the way the media's spinning this conflict - and the way the Obama administration is positioning itself for a cut-and-run -- I may well soon be.

I wrote of the stakes in Afghanistan last week, following a New York Times report indicating that the Mumbai terrorists were gearing up for a new round of conflict. See, "Another Mumbai? Qaeda-Taliban-Lashkar Ready to Strike Again." It turns out that Dan Twining, at Foreign Policy, wrote a report last week as well, "The Stakes in Afghanistan Go Well Beyond Afghanistan":

The problem with the current debate over Afghanistan is that it is too focused on Afghanistan. There is no question that the intrinsic importance of winning wars our country chooses to fight -- to secure objectives that remain as compelling today as they were on September 12, 2001 -- is itself reason for President Obama to put in place a strategy for victory in Afghanistan. But the larger frame has been lost in the din of debate over General McChrystal's leaked assessment, President Obama's intention to ramp up or draw down in Afghanistan, and the legitimacy of the Afghan election. In fact, it is vital for the United States and its allies to recommit to building an Afghan state that can accountably govern its people and defeat the Taliban insurgency -- for reasons that have to do not only with Afghanistan's specific pathologies but with the implications of failure for the wider region and America's place in the international system.

The facts are lost on congressional Democrats and the hardline antiwar left. But as I noted at my report above, a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan will invite another attack on America on the scale of September 11. And both security experts and military personnel agree: "This is a moment in history we must not miss." What's missing is a committed and resolute civilian leadership to see to it that America gets the job done.

*********

UPDATE: There's now a thread at Memeorandum. Jules Crittenden's suggests an "Afghan Tet," which means that the insurgents were in fact decimated, but the press is reporting an American debacle:

Sounds a little like the Taliban would like to pull off an Afghan Tet. Rack up some bad headlines, drive down the poll numbers and panic Congress while the president dithers. You’ll recall that in the original Tet, the Viet Cong and North Vietnam won a Pyrrhic political victory. Though decimated, severely compromed as a fighting force going forward and having failed to hold any ground, they managed to turn American public and political opinion. And won.

Either way, American lives were lost, and the stakes are high, as noted above.

See also, Michelle Malkin, "The Deadly Siege at Kamdeysh." And Weasel Zippers, "Afghanistan: Eight More Heroes Die In Day-Long Taliban Attack ..."

Added: Pamela at Atlas Shrugs links, "EIGHT MORE US SOLDIERS DEAD IN AFGHANISTAN, Obama consults Mother Goose for strategy." Pamela questions not the need for the deployment, but the administration's will to fight it:

Obama has no intention of destroying jihad. He just doesn't. The man grew up in a Muslim country, with a Mulsim father and stepfather and does not reject the Islamic view but prefers it. Hence all the outrech to slaughterers.

So why would I want our most precious resource, our finest Americans, slaughtered in a sloppy, ill-conceived, fairy tale war strategy where our girls and boys can't help but end up dead. Under Obama's reckless, feckless anti-commandership, we have experienced the highest number of deaths in Afghanistan month after month since the inception of the defensive military actions in Islam's war on the US.

Interestingly, but I just saw this yesterday from Diana West, " Losing' Our Way to Victory" (via Baldilocks):

This mission demands a new line of battle around the West itself, one supported by a multilevel strategy in which the purpose of military action is not to nation-build in the Islamic world, but to nation-save in the Western one. Secure the borders, for starters, something "war president" George W. Bush should have done but never did. Eliminate the nuclear capabilities of jihadist nations such as Iran, another thing George W. Bush should have done but never did -- Pakistan's, too. Destroy jihadist actors, camps and havens wherever and whenever needed (the strategy in place and never executed by Bill Clinton in the run-up to 9/11). But not by basing, supplying and supporting a military colossus in Islamic, landlocked Central Asia. It is time, as Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (USA ret.) first told me last April, to "let Afghanistan go." It is not in our interests to civilize it.

Both Pamela and Diana want to win, but they don't see much sense in trying to nation-build Afghanistan, and especially under a Democratic administration that's uncommitted.

To repeat, I'm not there yet. I'm with Dan Twining above who warns of the larger dangers to the international system found in continued AF-PAK insecurity. We're going to fight, sooner or later. (For more on this, see Let Them Fight or Bring Them Home, "McChrystal's Folly.")

Maybe this president will actually come around to his senses and suppport America, and I'm not saying that to be Pollyanna-ish. At the least, Obama wants to be reelected, and I'm confident -- and as I've said many times already -- success mattters, and increasing progress on the war will keep public support high.

The ball is in the president's court. See, "Success Matters: Public Opinion and the War in Afghanistan."

See also, Common Sense Political Thought, "To Fight or Fold, or Let Fester?"

'The Providence Effect': Astonishing Educational Achievement, 'The Way It Should Be Done'

I took my oldest son to Santa Monica last night to see The Providence Effect. The movie is playing this week at Laemmle's Monica 4-Plex (the next block down from the 3rd Street Promenade). Kenneth Turan's review is here. And note this:

The person behind this heartening achievement is the school's president, Paul Adams III, a formidably charismatic individual who is determined to change the culture of American education, to break the cycle of poverty and give poor children the same opportunities as wealthy ones.

A veteran of the civil rights movement, Adams started at Providence St. Mel as a guidance counselor.

When the Chicago Archdiocese threatened to close the institution, he began a fundraising movement that enabled him to buy the building, take the school private, and run it so successfully that President Reagan came to visit. Twice.

Adams says he runs the school the old-fashioned way. Discipline is key for him; he and his staff enforce zero tolerance for drugs. Without discipline, he says, you can't get a student's attention.

Once that attention is assured, Adams counts on his inspired faculty to excite the kids about learning, and judging by the interviews with current and former students and glimpses inside selected classrooms, the method seems to work.

President Reagan's at 1:45 at the trailer above. He praises the students with open arms, exhorting them in triumph, "This is the way it should be done." To see him there, speaking to that school -- an all black school during the 1980s when the social welfare state had reached epic proportion, and when poverty and crime had destroyed the inner-cities -- is incredibly uplifting.

And what struck me, from the perspective of a teacher, was the no BS approach to instruction. There's no sign of progressive education throughout the entire film (and thus no mind-crushing leftist indocrtination). It's straight learning, with in-your-face instructors and administrators who spend time with the kids and in the classroom. Things go so well it seemed almost antiseptic. But as the early minutes of the film show, Chicago had been overrun by gang violence and much of the Westside had been razed in a far-from-finished scheme of urban redevelopment. Interviews with graduates -- kids who grew up to be doctors and bankers, etc. -- illustrated that the school was truly a life-saving institution, and education became the central focus of the child and the child's family.

The Providence Effect website is here. The Providence St. Mel school website is here. The school boasts a 100 percent college entrance acceptance rate, and the homepage states that "The School That Refused to Die -- Now a Model for Urban Education."

And I was thinking exactly that after learning of the death of Derrion Albert in Chicago this week. The Los Angeles Times has a report, "Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan Attend Chicago Teen's Funeral." And from the Chicago Tribune, "Derrion Albert Funeral: There Is No Simple Fix For Problems, Pastor Says; Parents Urged to Reclaim Their Children, City Urged to Educate Kids Closer to Home":

In death, the 16-year-old became the latest high-profile name on the long list of young Chicagoans who have died violently. The teen's brutal beating with two-by-fours was recorded Sept. 24. The attack captured the nation's attention and elicited a response from the White House.

President Barack Obama is sending Attorney General Eric Holder and Education Secretary Arne Duncan to Chicago this week in the wake of the fatal beating. Obama's spokesman has indicated the administration is preparing an initiative to address the national issues of youth crime and violence.

It's almost tragic that the president's not spending time on these issues -- the crisis in American education -- rather than the year-long ObamaCare fiasco. This is the modern equivalent of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. And while I'm tempted to say something like "I can't see how the president has ignored these issues," that's not true. I know exactly how. The corrupt Cook County Democratic Party machine, thoroughly infiltrated with crooked cronies, all the way down to union hacks, progressive education activists, and community organizing thugs, has consigned to city's poor to perpetual poverty. Michelle Malkin's book, Culture of Corruption, discusses how Michelle Obama milked her connections to lucrative jobs while crying racism all the way to the top. These people are a joke, and the Democratic political establishment is the last entity that's going to solve the crisis of the city's -- and America's -- urban poor.

That's why seeing Reagan in the film was so riveting for me last night. President Reagan was excoriated by the black community in the 1980s for cutting welfare programs, but it's going to be conservatives with the vision to match Reagan's who will lift the hope for America's youth again. And it's going to be the traditional educational methods found at Providence St. Mel that will be the vehicle for greater advancement for those now held back by institutional malfeasance and progressive political corruption.

See also, WitnessLA "The Providence Effect: A Murder & An Answer." There's an interview there with Paul Allen, and this part illustrates my point:

WLA: With all your success, you must have a lot of people coming to you from the Chicago Public School system wanting advice as to how what you’ve done can be replicated in a public school setting.

PA: Actually no one has come

WLA: What do you mean no one? Like not one person from the Chicago School District has come to visit St. Mel’s?

PA: Never. Not one.

WLA: You’re kidding. I’m sorry to press this, but not one as in zero people?

PA: Zero.

WLA: Wow. That is completely nuts.

PA: I think so.

See what I mean?

A 'Major Storm' for Congressional Elections 2010

From Wizbang, "Some More Thoughts on 2010":

There is a tectonic shift at work in American politics today. Regionalism is a part of this shift. But the change movement that is simmering now is the manifestation of larger issues that transcend regionalism, among them individual liberty (ObamaCare), State's rights (Cap and Trade), national security (Holder investigation of the CIA) and a sound dollar (Federal Reserve secrecy). Oh, and unemployment (look at all the charts at the link).

Be sure to read the whole thing.

I especially love Wizbang's citation of Charlie Cook's response to Brendan Nyhan, "Have you been in the South lately?"

Image Credit: Theo Spark.

White Power! Janeane Garofalo Has Revealed My Secret!

Man, she's like a broken record! Janeane Garofalo, on this weekend's Bill Maher show, alleged "it's obvious to anybody who has eyes in this country that tea-baggers, the 9-12ers" are "clearly white power movements” led “by the Glenn Becks, the Michelle Bachmans, the Rush Limbaughs."

Geez, I guess I'm hiding my "white power" alliances pretty good! Don't show Janeane, but here's my picture from last October:

Dude, I'm down with the backwoods boys! Racist! AAAHHHH!!!! Grab the nooses men! We've got a black interloper in the White House!

Seriously, see JammieWearingFool, "Why Garofalo's Comments Are Dangerous" (via Memeorandum).

Carol Browner, Obama's Commie Climate-Czar, Says Tax-and-Trade Bust in 2009

From the New York Times, "Obama Aide Concedes Climate Law Must Wait" (via Memeorandum):

President Obama’s top climate and energy official said Friday that there was virtually no chance Congress would have a climate and energy bill ready for him to sign before negotiations on a global climate treaty begin in December in Copenhagen.

The remarks by the official, Carol M. Browner, during an onstage interview in Washington, were the first definitive statement by the administration that it saw little chance of Congressional passage this fall.

Lawmakers and environmental campaigners have cast similar doubts on the prospect in recent weeks, given the high priority put on health care legislation and the array of hearings that would be needed on the energy initiative, to say nothing of the time needed to reconcile competing versions of it. Climate legislation was introduced in the Senate only Wednesday, a full three months after the House passed its version.

“Obviously we’d like to be through the process — that’s not going to happen,” Ms. Browner said at a conference on politics and history organized by The Atlantic magazine. “I think we would all agree the likelihood you would have a bill signed by the president on comprehensive energy by the time we would go in early December is not likely.”

Good thing.

There's an interesting piece in the latest Foreign Affairs on the Copenhagen Conference, "Copenhagen's Inconvenient Truth." Although the author, Michael Levi, accepts the flawed science of the global warming hysterics, he nevertheless offers an interesting critique of the left's push for cap-and-trade legislation:

Americans accustomed to thinking about climate diplomacy within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol may assume that the obvious next step is to translate reduction goals into emissions caps, put them in a treaty, and establish a system for global carbon trading. But this would be problematic for three reasons.

First, negotiators from developing countries would insist on much less stringent caps than whatever they thought they could meet. Higher caps would give them a cushion by maximizing the odds of their remaining in compliance even if their domestic policies for cutting emissions failed. Likewise, these loose caps would protect them if their economies shifted in unexpected ways that increased their emissions, as happened in China in the early part of this decade and could happen in India in the future. Inflated targets could also let developing countries collect large sums of money in exchange for little effort, if they were allowed to sell surplus emissions permits in a global cap-and-trade system. But potentially enormous financial flows from wealthy countries to poorer ones would make the system politically toxic in the West.

Second, even if a developing country met its agreed emissions cap, other nations would, in the near term, have little way of verifying this, since most developing countries, including China and India, lack the capacity to robustly monitor their entire economies' emissions. This would be doubly problematic if developing countries were allowed to sell excess emissions permits as part of a global cap-and-trade system, since errors in calculating emissions could lead to a situation in which wealthier countries transferred massive amounts of money to poorer ones that appeared to have cut their emissions more deeply than they actually had.

And finally, even if the problems of excessively high caps and poor verification could be solved, simple caps would have little value on their own. Canada is a case in point. Ottawa will soon exceed its Kyoto limit by about 30 percent, yet it will face no penalty for doing so because the Kyoto parties never agreed on any meaningful punishments. The United States and others have essentially no way to hold countries such as China and India to emissions caps short of using punitive trade sanctions or other blunt instruments that would make a mess of broader U.S. foreign policy. Obsessing narrowly in Copenhagen over legally binding near-term caps for developing countries is therefore a waste of time.

The solution to all three problems is to focus on specific policies and measures that would control emissions in the biggest developing countries and on providing assistance and incentives to increase the odds that those efforts will succeed. Such bottom-up initiatives could include, among other things, requiring efficient technology in heavy industry, subsidizing renewable energy, investing in clean-coal technology, improving the monitoring and enforcement of building codes, and implementing economic development plans that provide alternatives to deforestation.

These measures would not be any less binding than emissions caps in practice. Moreover, if designed properly -- and if they add up to deep enough cuts in each country's emissions -- they would be far more likely to work. Actual emissions cuts happen because of policies, not promises, and the simple fact that governments could directly control these policies would increase the likelihood of success. Monitoring compliance would also be easier, since policies, unlike emissions targets, must be codified in law and reflected in specific changes on the ground. Developing countries could focus much of their near-term efforts on specific measures that dovetail with other objectives -- such as reducing oil imports or cutting air pollution -- making them more attractive and hence more likely to be implemented. Moreover, they could be linked to incentives from the outside, such as subsidized sales of efficient U.S. technology, which could be more effective and politically palatable than the simple but blunt financial incentives of a global cap-and-trade system.

More at Memeorandum. And also, the Blog Prof, "What to do as unemployment inches up towards 10%? Climate czar Carol Browner thinks it's time to push cap-and-trade and tax each household at $1,700."

Plus, from the Real World, "THE ACROSS THE BOARD BETRYAL OF 'CAP & TRADE'."

Image Credit: Astute Bloggers, "OBAMA: EXCESSIVE MAN-MADE CO2 is HURTING JOB GROWTH."

Neoconservatives Make a Comeback

Brett Stephens had a great essay last week, "The Neocons Make a Comeback." But check out Dr. Sanity, "NEOCONSERVATIVE REALISM":

Neoconservatism has been pronounced dead by its opponents many times in the decades since its ideas were first formulated. The reasons tha these rumors of its death are constantly exaggerated is due to the fact that the philosophy underlying neoconservative policies is extremely threatening to today's postmodern political left.

Today's left is a nothing more than the hallow shell of what was once known as "liberalism"; and it is held together by the empty and meaningless rhetoric of postmodern intellectual nonsense, otherwise known as political correctness and multiculturalism (or, cultural relativity).

Neoconservatism as an intellectual theory actually arose from the observation in the 1960's that classical liberalism had been hijacked by the left and its essence literally reconstructed to suit the needs of dead-end socialists and communists, finally beginning to realize that the jig was up for them.

All over the world it was becoming more and more obvious that political and social collectivism was an abject failure. Wherever these ideologies were implemented, their policies led to intractable poverty and economic misery; and inevitably the economic policies were accompanied by oppression, tyranny, and the crushing of the human spirit.

I have discussed elsewhere how the recent revival of socialism and its collectivist/totalitarian agenda in the late 20th and early 21st century was made possible by the adoption of postmodern epistemology, rhetoric and politics by western intellectual elites:

The rise of neoconservatism in the latter part of the 20th century represents the only modern intellectual counter and the only known antidote to the infection of postmodernism and its resultant toxic effects on philosophy, politics and rehtoric.

In order to succeed in undoing and undermining the clear and unambiguous evidence of socialism's and communism's utter human toxicity, the totalitarians of the political left had to undermine nothing less than reality, reason, and truth.

Furthermore, they had to deconstruct and invalidate human consciousness, making sure that the everyone understood that the only apparatus available to humans for perceiving reality--the mind--was completely unreliable, and that the evidence of the senses must therefore be discounted. This intellectual strategy has resulted in a pervasive moral and cultural relativism; and an intellectual nihilism that has permeated all aspects of society and intellectual thought.

Words and language are redefined to mean whatever is wanted/needed in the moment to persuade; history is deconstructed--ostensibly to expose it's lies, but really to render it meaningless and irrelevant to the present; and the ideas and values that are the foundation of Western Civilization are mocked and shown by postmodern "logic" to be no better than any other random ideas.

For the left, freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose--and not much different from slavery anyway; democracy is just as much a fraud as tyranny; that which was always considered the good, is really just as evil as evil; and so on. Twentieth century postmodernists thus set themselves up as culturally and morally superior to all other humans in history, and with the postmodern relativistic advantage, they could pass judgement on everyone and everything. Thus from the superior postmodern perspective, there was nothing of value to learn from a slave-holding--and clearly imperfect-- Thomas Jefferson; there is no moral superiority in a system that strives toward increasing individual human freedom and dignity compared to a system that doesn't even recognize the rights of the individual. There is no difference between right and wrong; good and evil--all are suspect, all are hypcritical, all are imperfect; and thus all such concepts are rendered irrelevant.

By disgarding reason and reality; by abandoning the past and embracing moral and cultural relativism, the left has brought us to this place where we are morally and physically paralyzed. We place greater value on beautiful words and rhetoric than on behavior; what is said, instead of what is done; we seem unable to distinguish between the deliberate targeting and killing of innocents and the accidental and unavoidable killing of innocents despite herculean efforts to avoid it; between waging war to give people a chance at freedom and democracy; and waging war for domination and imperialism; between standing up for what is right and accepting the consequences, and abandoning one's values and surrendering with "honor" to the scum of the earth.

Do our current leaders have the moral will to actually win the war in Afghanistan now that the morally bankrupt left is calling the shots? I sincerely doubt it. Even as I write this, our Dear Leader is heading off to lobby for the Chicago Olympics and can't be bothered to meet or discuss strategy with the General he appointed to oversee the war . This more than anything highlights the ridiculous priorities and broken moral compass of the political left.Yet, these are the same political ideologues who have established themselves as the arbiters of moral behavior by enabling and encouraging amoral and immoral behavior; of being "reality-based" without the necessity of having to acknowledge reality; of speaking "truth" to power, without being capable of recognizing truth (isn't all truth relative, after all?).

I put the palecon-libertarians in there along with Dr. Sanity's discussion of the radical left. They've made common cause with our enemies as well.

Image Credit: The Anti-Neocons (Lew Rockwell fan-boys).

Obama's Olympic Failure

From Fred Barnes, "Obama's Olympic Failure Will Test the Washington Press Corps" (via Memeorandum):

Now is the time for the mainstream media to show it’s not totally in President Obama’s pocket. The Washington press corps will never fault Obama for pushing hyper-liberal policies in a moderate-to-conservative country. Ideological criticism by the press is reserved for Republican presidents ....

The thriller in Copenhagen was not just a test of Obama. It’s a test of the media’s willingness to cover the president professionally and honestly when he stumbles. A love affair with a president should have its limits.

Read the whole thing at the link.

See also, Gateway Pundit, "Mmm... Mmm... Mmm... Rush Limbaugh Slams Obama For Failing to Grab the Gold for Chicago."

Plus, Astute Bloggers, "CHICAGO ELIMINATED: WITHOUT ACORN VOTER FRAUD, BLACK PANTHER VOTER INTIMIDATION, SEIU THUGGERY AND AN 8-TO-1 SPENDING ADVANTAGE OBAMA LOSES."

Image Credit: Rush Limbaugh, "The Ego Has Landed: A Racist World Wants Barack Obama to Fail."

Arrest in Erin Andrews Nude Video Case: Press Release, 'I Will Make Every Effort to Protect Victims of Criminal Stalking'

I've been meaning to write about Erin Andrews again. Her interview last month with Orprah Winfrey was especially interesting. See, "ESPN's Erin Andrews Speaks Out."

Even more interesting was the August story at Fanhouse on the foot-dragging progress in the Erin Andrews investigation, "Where's the Truth in Erin Andrews Saga?" For as distraught as Erin Andrews has been --- no one should be violated as she was --- Fanhouse rightly questions whether Andrews' squeaky-clean image is fully justified:

The only thing we've seen of Andrews since late July was a photo spread in GQ. It was shot pre-peephole and was harmless enough.

Well, there was one picture of her standing on top of a Gatorade cooler wearing a tight black skirt. She was surrounded by football players dying to quench their thirsts. You can be sure the photo was not approved by the Association for Women in Sports Media.

As for hearing anything from Andrews, all we've gotten is the tape of an emergency 911 call. Paparazzi were lurking outside her Atlanta-area home, and she was not happy."I did nothing wrong and I'm being treated like (bleeping) Britney Spears and it sucks," Andrews told the operator.

Note to Erin: If you want to stop being treated like Britney Spears, perhaps you should stop posing on top of Gatorade coolers surrounded by tongue-wagging young men.

The Fanhouse piece was the best analysis available in recent weeks. Andrews' interview with Oprah was riveting television, but given her own comfort with posing for suggestive photo displays in mens' magazines, folks might want to reconsider Christine Brennan's suggestion that Andrews deserved it. Of course, I don't think she did --- I repeat, I don't think she did --- but if Andrews wants to continue her aggressive PR agenda as the girl next door, it's hardly helpful to be seen in a locker room with lurking mud-smeared jocks ogling her body.

In any case, check TMZ for the more on the arrest, "Arrest Made in Erin Andrews Peeping Tom":

TMZ has learned an arrest has been made in the Erin Andrews Peeping Tom case -- the one in which the ESPN reporter was secretly videotaped walking around naked in various hotel rooms ... and the suspect has been charged with the federal crime of felony stalking.

48-year-old Michael David Barrett was arrested at Chicago O'Hare International Airport tonight.

According to the FBI, Barrett allegedly stalked Erin "with the intent to harass, to place under surveillance with intent to harass and intimidate, and to cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another state."

See also, Wizbang Pop, "Arrest Made In Erin Andrews Nude Video Case." And, the Los Angeles Times, "Man Arrested in Erin Andrews Nude Video Case."

Plus, the press release from Andrews' law firm, Bingham McCutchen: "Statement on Behalf of Erin Andrews":

"Today's action by the FBI is a welcome step in bringing this investigation to a successful close. We made it clear in our original statement issued on July 17, that we were determined to press criminal charges against those responsible for the invasion of Erin's privacy when alone in her hotel room. Erin and her attorneys have been working closely with the United States Attorney, the FBI in Los Angeles and the private investigation firm of Kroll, Inc. since mid-July to investigate and reveal the full facts surrounding this matter. It is now clear that she was the victim of stalking and invasion of privacy at more than one location. She was not a random victim. She was targeted and violated.

Upon learning of today's events, Andrews said: "I am deeply grateful to Assistant United States Attorney Wes Hsu and Special Agents for their dedicated service; and to ESPN for its support during this difficult time. I hope that today's action will help the countless others who have been similarly victimized. For my part, I will make every effort to strengthen the laws on a State and Federal level to better protect victims of criminal stalking. I am also grateful to those who have expressed their concerns and good wishes for my family and me."

According to attorney Marshall Grossman, "Erin deserves significant credit for the progress made in solving this case. She has worked side by side with law enforcement to reconstruct the events and provide leads which have led directly to today's action. She is committed to seeing this through and do all she can to create a deterrent to others who would even consider engaging in this type of vile conduct in the future.

Click here for my previous reports.

Conservatives Rooting Against America? Yeah. Right. It's Obama's EPIC FAIL, Not America's

Okay, full disclosure: At first I wasn't all that worked up over President Obama's Olympics lobbying. Yeah, the push for Chicago had all the by-now routine markings of Democratic crony corruption, and America REALLY has more pressing problems for the president than to fly off to Copenhagen when unemployment's topping 10 percent and American casualties are piling up in Afghanistan. But now, yeah, you know --- I am pretty bothered by this. I'm especially bothered at the how the Democratic-leftists are now trying to spin the right's reaction to both the administration's stupidity and incompetence as cheering against America. I mean look at how dramatic this Media Matters video is, "Rooting Against America: Fox News Assaults Chicago's Olympics Bid":

And this one, "Rooting Against America: Beck, Right Wing Cheer Elimination Of Chicago's Olympic Bid":

AOSHQ has a post up taking Glenn Thrush to task for whitewashing of the Democratic Party's America-bashing and nihilistic cut-and-run defeatism. See, "Republicans Rooting Against America?" Ace won't link to his key example, but here's this from Salon, "Liberation Day":

I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings.

And naturally, that's just one example. As I often point out, Newshoggers cheered when al Qaeda in Iraq started using female Down syndrome suicide bombers to kill and maim American troops and Iraqi civilians. That was a "brilliant tactical adaptation." It's no coincidence that right now the top post at Newshoggers claims that "the Afghan election was always going to be a McChrystalization of all that's wrong with the occupation." Right. And that's the Democrats' "good war," remember, the "war of necessity." Just this week Digby encapsulated Democratic Party betrayal of America in Afghanistan:

The Democrats backed themselves into defending the idea of Afghanistan being The Good War because they felt they needed to prove their macho bonafides when they called for withdrawal from Iraq. Nobody asked too many questions sat the time, including me. But none of us should forget that it was a political strategy, not a serious foreign policy.

And, of course, Media Matters --- financially-backed by the anti-American George Soros --- has long mounted a campaign of defeat for America in Iraq. As David Horowitz and Ben Johnson point out regarding Soros-financed MoveOn.org-Democratic Party antiwar establishment:

While American forces battled al-Qaeda and Ba’athist insurgents in the Iraqi capital, the Democratic National Committee released a television ad that focused not on winning those battles, but on the very legitimacy of the war ....

In the midst of a war, and in the face of a determined terrorist resistance in Iraq, Democrats had launched an attack on America’s presence on the field of battle.

See also this post at Michelle Malkin's, "Media Matters In the Meme Streets of Baghdad" (on the leftist media generally):

Curiously enough, every time a major media source blows a story, they do so by publishing something that advances the message of the “emerging defeat” in Iraq, and that only thing we can do is to manage that inevitable defeat.

Folks can see why I'm frustrated. Leftists are the true haters and cheerleaders for America's destruction.

The loss of the Olympic bid today was a failure of Barack Obama, his corrupt adminisration, and his morally bankrupt party. Conservatives want them to fail, not the United States of America.

Tea Party Express Calls Out David Weigel at Washington Independent

I'm not involved with top-level planning whatsoever, but I just got word from the folks at Our Country PAC/Tea Party Express that the Washington Independent's David Weigel is making erroneous statements regarding the organization's place in the tea party movement. See Weigel's piece, "Discord in the Tea Parties?":

I’m hearing — though the players have not yet responded to my questions — that there’s some serious friction between one of the main organizations of the Tea Party movement and one of the late-comers. The main organization is Tea Party Patriots, the genuine grassroots group (with some marginal ties to FreedomWorks et al.) launched in February, after Rick Santelli’s CNBC “rant.” The late-comer is the Tea Party Express, the offshoot of the conservative, GOP-centric Our Country Deserves Better PAC.

Our Country Deserves Better is repudiating the "late-comer" characterization. See, "We’ve Been Proud Supporters of the Tea Party Movement." This screencap from the post shows a February 23 entry at the Our Country PAC MySpace page:

And here's the response:

A reporter for a Washington D.C.-based newspaper referred to the Our Country Deserves Better Committee this week as “late comers” to the Tea Party movement. We had a good chuckle over this misrepresentation, because the Our Country Deserves Better Committee has been involved in supporting the tea party movement since it all began way back in February 2009. We’ve learned to be patient when members of the press get their facts wrong about the tea party movement and the goals of all of us who are involved in fighting for our country’s future.

So to make sure the record is set straight here’s the history of our involvement in the tea party movement – it is one that we are very proud of. We’ve been honored to work with hundreds of thousands of tea party supporters all across America – and our work has only just begun!

David Weigel's a talented young reporter, but he's by no means objective. He was formerly at Reason, so his shift to the radical left is particularly interesting in terms of the left/libertarian axis. Anyway, he's not to be trusted. See my earlier entry as well, "What's Up With David Weigel?"

Added: Weigel has updated with another post, "Tea Party Patriots vs. Tea Party Express."

Gilad Shalit Alive: 'Proof of Life' Deal No Breakthrough - Egypt-Hamas Demand Release of Dozens of Terrorists

From the Los Angeles Times, "Israeli Soldier Held Three Years by Hamas Appears Healthy in Video":

Israelis today saw the first images of their country's celebrated hostage, a soldier who looked healthy in a televised video, declared he's being well treated by the Palestinians who captured him more than three years ago, and appealed to Israel's leader to bring him home.

In exchange for the video recording, Israel released 19 Palestinian female prisoners earlier in the day, a swap meant to advance long-deadlocked negotiations to trade the soldier, Staff Sgt. Gilad Shalit, for hundreds of Palestinians accused of militant activity.

Seated and speaking calmly in Hebrew from a written text, Shalit sent love to his parents and recalled in detail a 2005 visit his family paid to his military base. He held up an Arabic-language newspaper as the camera zoomed in on the date: September 14, 2009. After his 2 1/2 -minute statement, he rose from his chair and walked toward the camera.

Those details satisfied Israeli authorities that the proof-of-life evidence they had sought from the militant Hamas movement was filmed recently and that the 23-year-old captive was lucid and capable of walking on his own.

See also, Atlas Shrugs, "Proof of Life: Gilad Shalit": "Expect a boom in the kidnapping Jewish kid biz."

Yep, that's right. See, Haaretz, "Hamas and Egypt: Shalit 'Video Deal' is Not a Breakthrough":

Egyptian sources involved in the negotiations, as well as Hamas sources, emphasized Thursday, however, that the "video deal" is not a breakthrough and the negotiations for Shalit's release can be expected to continue for some time. The Egyptian sources said the deal has nothing to do with the main prize. "It's a positive step, but it must be understood that the work on the comprehensive deal is continuous and there are significant areas of disagreement," one Egyptian source said.

Sources in Hamas said that most of the contention now is over a group of prisoners serving life terms, as well as a way to allow for the release of other prisoners who Israel is refusing to permit to return to their homes in the West Bank. "There is disagreement over the expulsion of dozens of prisoners," one Hamas source said, "and how long they'll be forced to remain in exile. Hamas is demanding that their exile be limited in time."

And From Adam Kushner, "Israel's Trade ─ For the Gilad Shalit Video ─ Wasn't Worth It":

Israel has often found itself asking the question, how much is a life worth? This week they asked it with a twist: how much is mere proof of life worth? A whole lot.

The government yesterday traded 20 female Palestinian prisoners—accused (and often convicted) of crimes from plotting suicide attacks to carrying concealed weapons—for a video proving the soldier Gilad Shalit is still alive. Captured by Hamas in 2006, Shalit has been subject of several attempted deals, and when his freedom is finally won, it will likely be in a hugely asymmetrical deal. Is it worth it?

Probably not. Even conceding that a soldier's life is worth the release of hundreds of prisoners, Israel has several times gotten a raw deal from these trades. In one famous 1985 exchange, Jerusalem traded 1,150 Arab prisoners—some of whom turned around and started shooting again—for three soldiers captured during the Lebanon occupation. Even when they don't, trades like these convey exactly the wrong incentive structure, encouraging the taking of hostages.

Chicago Rejected in First Round of Olympic Voting

What a waste of time and effort (not to mention taxpayers' money): "Chicago Ousted in First Round of Olympic Voting":

Chicago is out. The Windy City has been removed from consideration after just one round of voting. Tokyo went out in the second round, leaving Rio de Janeiro and Madrid.

Also, from Michelle Malkin, "The noble “Sacrifice” of Michelle Obama; Update: Chicago & Tokyo Eliminated."

Elizabeth Smart Speaks Publicly of Ordeal For First Time

From the Los Angeles Times, "Elizabeth Smart, Abducted in 2002 in Utah, Speaks Publicly of Her Ordeal for the First Time":

For the first time since her 2002 abduction captured worldwide attention, Elizabeth Smart spoke publicly about her ordeal, testifying Thursday in federal court that self-proclaimed religious prophet Brian David Mitchell repeatedly invoked religion to justify the sexual abuse she said she endured for nine months.

"Any time that I showed resistance or hesitation he turned to me and said, 'The Lord says you have to do this, you have to experience the lowest form of humanity to experience the highest,' " said Smart, who was 14 when she was kidnapped.

Testifying in a hearing to determine whether Mitchell is mentally competent to face federal kidnapping charges, Smart, now 21, calmly said she had been shackled and repeatedly raped. She testified that Mitchell "married" her in a bizarre wedding ceremony the night of her abduction and that he believed he would vanquish the anti-Christ someday soon.

Her kidnapping set off a nationwide search, which ended in 2003 when a motorist spotted Smart, who was a wearing blue pillowcase-like veil over her face, as she walked down a street in a Salt Lake City suburb with Mitchell and his wife, Wanda Barzee. The motorist recognized Mitchell from news reports.

Mitchell and Barzee have been ruled mentally incompetent to stand trial in state court. Federal prosecutors have filed kidnapping charges against them and called Smart as a witness to bolster their case that Mitchell, who has been in a state mental hospital for years, is faking his mental illness to avoid punishment.

Smart has remained largely out of the public eye since her abduction, though she appeared on CNN to offer advice to Jaycee Lee Dugard, who in August was discovered 18 years after being kidnapped from South Lake Tahoe.

"I would just encourage her to find different passions in life and continually push forward and learn more and reach more for them," Smart said, "and not to look behind, because there's a lot out there."

More at the link.

At the video above, "Elizabeth Smart's Dad Speaks."

Laughing Matter: Audience Erupts as Letterman Admits to Affairs

Sister Toldjah's got the story, "Video/Transcript of Audience Laughing as Letterman Admits to Affairs." Plus, here's the YouTube from the Los Angeles Times, "David Letterman on Extortion Attempt: 'I Felt Menaced By This'":

Also, at AP, "Letterman Creates Brilliant Hour of TV From Woes." But see Neptunus Lex:

Have we really come to the point in our culture where child rape can be forgiven if you make good movies? Where the sexual exploitation of employees is forgivable so long as the exploiter makes us laugh? I ask once more: Who are these people?

Via Memeorandum.

Republicans Target Obama's Foreign Policy

From the Los Angeles Times, "GOP Targets Obama's Foreign Policy":

As he embraces direct talks with Iran and weighs his strategy in Afghanistan, President Obama is facing a new political threat from Republicans: Be hawkish on foreign policy or risk letting your party be painted as weak in next year's midterm elections.

Top Republicans have adopted that line of attack in recent days, led by congressional leaders and at least two of the party's possible 2012 presidential contenders.

Their warnings to the president mark a shift in tone and tactics for a Republican Party that had been largely supportive of Obama administration policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The GOP lost its long-held advantage as the party of national security when the public rejected the policies of former President George W. Bush in the 2006 and 2008 elections. But now, Republican strategists say that foreign policy could prove to be a potent weapon in 2010.

The Republican strategists are poring over Obama speeches, such as his June address to the Muslim world, that they can portray as apologies for American actions abroad.

Additionally, GOP strategists are homing in on Obama's recent policy shift on missile defense, in which the administration decided to cancel a radar installation in the Czech Republic and ground-based interceptors in Poland that had been proposed by Bush to protect Europe from Iranian long-range missiles. Obama wants to focus instead on combating short-range missiles that some intelligence officials say are a more likely threat.

Republicans are panning that shift as a unilateral concession to Russia, which viewed the Bush missile plan as a threat.

"The agenda is coming down the pike on national security, and Republicans are going to see an opportunity to regain the mantle," said Vin Weber, a former congressman from Minnesota who is advising the governor of that state, Tim Pawlenty, on a possible White House bid in 2012.

Well, it's not like it's going to be hard or anything.

I meant to post this earlier (and take five minutes and read the whol thing), from Pat in Shreveport: Caroline Glick's majesterial essay, "An Enfeebled Obama."

Cartoon Credit: Theo Spark.

Are Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter Good for Conservatives? or, David Frum's Political Stockholm Syndrome (And Charles Johnson's)

From Frontpage Magazine, "Are Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter Good for Conservatives?" (with David Horowitz on David Frum's emotional attachment to the right's partisan enemies):

It seems to me you are suffering from a kind of political Stockholm syndrome. You inhabit a mental universe shaped by media like Newsweek and the New York Review of Books, in which you are a hostage of the Left. As a result you’ve absorbed some of their attitudes, and look at Palin and other non-U conservatives through their eyes, instead of your own.

Also, amazingly, Charles Johnson's mounting a smear campaign against Palin's book. A Google link is here: "Sarah Palin's Book Ghostwritten by Associate of White Supremacist McCain." Pluse, here's the Google cached page of Little Green Footballs. It's okay to click without giving Charles Johnson any blog hits. Check Saber Point for more on that, "If You Just HAVE to Visit "Little Green Footballs," Here's the Way to Do It", and "Mentally Ill Blogger Charles Johnson Hides Shrinking Numbers of New Members."

Related: More Palin Derangement, " Steve Schmidt: Palin Would Be “Catastrophic” For GOPers in 2012" (via Memeorandum).