Americans See China as Economic Threat

From CNN, "Americans See China as Economic Threat":

Americans are split over whether China represents a military threat to the United States -- but there is no doubt in the public's mind that the country poses an economic threat, according to a new national poll.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday, 51 percent of the public consider China a military threat, with 47 percent disagreeing. That 4-point margin is within the poll's 4.5 percent sampling error.

The poll's release coincides with U.S. President Barack Obama's first visit to China to bolster relations. At a town hall meeting on Monday he made the case to Chinese students that the two countries' philosophical differences should not get in the way of a robust relationship.

According to the survey, two-thirds see China as a source of unfair competition for U.S. companies, while only a quarter are more likely to view China as a huge potential market for U.S. goods.

"That may be why 71 percent of Americans consider China an economic threat to the U.S.," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Americans tend to view foreign countries as competition, and China is no exception."

This is actually one of the most important issues in contemporary international politics.

For a recent political science analysis, see Daniel Drezner, "Bad Debts: Assessing China's Financial Influence in Great Power Politics" (at International Security).

I'll have more on the U.S.-China relationship later.

Right now I'm heading out to a book signing with Michelle Malkin, "An Afternoon with Michelle Malkin" (with the Orange County Leadership Alliance - OCLA). I should have a nice photo-report on that tonight.

Image Credit Above: Los Angeles Times, "Obama and China's Hu Jintao Pledge Stronger Ties."

Waiting for Charles Johnson to Join Andrew Sullivan's Anti-Israel Ravings...

With all the Sarah Palin news, I thought I'd check Andrew Sullivan's page this morning. It's pretty much routine stuff ("the lies of Sarah Palin," blah, blah). While there, I took this screencap of Andrew's "Face of the Day" (a Palestinian terrorist):

Palestinians smuggle sheep into the Gaza Strip through a tunnel under the Egypt-Gaza border in Rafah on November 15, 2009. Residents of the poverty-stricken Gaza Strip fear a shortage of sacrificial cattle ahead of a major Muslim holiday due to Israel's blockade. Eid al-Adha or Feast of Sacrifice marks the end of the annual pilgrimage to Mecca and is celebrated in remembrance of Abraham's readiness to sacrifice his son to God. By Said Khatib/AFP/Getty.

*****

Given Sullivan's long history of anti-Semitism (see my essay at RealClearPolitcs, "Kos and Andrew: Merchants of Hate"), I'm wondering when Charles Johnson will complete his leftist transmogrification by hopping on the left's anti-Israel bandwagon. Actually, while Dan Riehl recently wrote, "Charles Johnson's Deplorable Deception Knows No Bounds" (a reference to King Charles' "racist" attacks on Robert Stacy McCain), I think folks are still waiting for the other shoe to drop on Israel.

In any case, Reliapundit suggested to keep an eye out for the denunciation of Israel at Little Green Footballs. Seeing Andrew Sullivan's attack blog this morning was just a little reminder of what's likely coming down the pike.

RELATED: "Charles Johnson and Andrew Sullivan: Separated at Birth?"

Democrats Go 'Berserk' over Going Rogue

I noted yesterday how the intensity of leftist opposition to Sarah Palin is an extremely good measure of her political power. It turns out that Andrew Malcolm's picked up on the theme, "Going Berserk Over 'Going Rogue;' Democrats' Reaction to Sarah Palin Book and Publicity":

Wow, for somebody who's supposed to be such a political joke, an Arctic ditz and eminently dismissable as a serious anything except maybe a stay-at-home hockey mom, Sarah Palin is sure drawing an awful lot of attention from Democrats and eager critics.

The launch of her "Going Rogue" interviews Monday on "Oprah," of her book today, of her on-air chat today with Rush Limbaugh at 10 a.m. Pacific and of her mid-America bus book tour Wednesday ignited a surprisingly large blizzard of derogatory Democrat dis-missives.

Every few minutes another note from Democratic National Committee operatives and others dropped into electronic mailboxes across the media-verse, helpfully passing on even the tiniest tidbit of negative news about Palin.

You know how sometimes a friend tells you how much he/she doesn't really care about....

...someone else. Really doesn't! And repeats it a sufficient number of times that you become convinced of precisely the opposite?

So maybe she does matter after all.

Oh no doubt, she matters. The main thing to watch is the money race: If Palin successfully raises a massive campaign war chest she's going to be virtually insurmountable in the GOP primaries in 2012. (And on this, note how Daniel Larison, our well-known enemy of the conservative good, is doing his unsuccessful best to debunk Palin's political inevitability. The AmCon America-basher sounds a bit like Bob Schieffer!)

More on that later. Meanwhile, here's a snippet from Palin's interview with Barbara Walters:

More at Memeorandum.

ObamaCare is Deeply Divisive, Poll Finds

The latest Washington Post poll finds the administration ObamaCare legislation dividing the country deeply, "Deep divisions linger on health care":

As the Senate prepares to take up legislation aimed at overhauling the nation's health-care system, President Obama and the Democrats are still struggling to win the battle for public opinion. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows Americans deeply divided over the proposals under consideration and majorities predicting higher costs ahead.

But Republican opponents have done little better in rallying the public opposition to kill the reform effort. Americans continue to support key elements of the legislation, including a mandate that employers provide health insurance to their workers and access to a government-sponsored insurance plan for those people without insurance.

Over the past few months, public opinion has solidified, leaving Obama and the Democrats with the political challenge of enacting one of the most ambitious pieces of domestic legislation in decades in the face of a nation split over the wisdom of doing so. In the new poll, 48 percent say they support the proposed changes; 49 percent are opposed.

With the bill through the House, Senate Democrats are now looking for the votes to enact their version of the legislation and keep the reform effort moving forward. Whatever the outcome of the health-care debate, it will have a powerful influence in shaping the political climate for next year's midterm elections.

The House bill contains a highly controversial provision prohibiting abortion coverage for those insured under a new public insurance plan as well as those who received federal subsidies to purchase private insurance. In the poll, 61 percent say they support barring coverage for abortions for those receiving public subsidies, but if private funds were used to pay for abortion expenses, the numbers flipped. With segregated private money used to cover abortion procedures, 56 percent say insurance offered to those using government assistance should be able to include such coverage.

The new poll provides ammunition for both advocates and opponents of reform. For opponents, a clear area of public concern centers on cost -- 52 percent say an altered system would probably make their own care more expensive, and 56 percent see the overall cost of health care in the country going up as a result.

Few see clear benefits in exchange for higher expenses. Rather, there has been a small but significant increase in the number (now 37 percent) who anticipate their care deteriorating under a revamped system, putting that number in line with opinion in July 1994, just before President Bill Clinton's health-care reform efforts fizzled.

Among those with insurance, three times as many continue to see worse rather than better coverage options ahead (39 to 13 percent), and fewer than half of those who lack insurance see better options under a changed system. Six in 10 see it as "very" or "somewhat" likely that many private insurers would be forced out of business by a government-sponsored insurance plan, a potential result that GOP leaders frequently warn about.

As much as the Post tries to spin support for "key provisions" of the legislation, the bill is going to be politically costly to the Dems There's much great "intensity" of opinion among proponents, and political indedpents are too favorable:

Looking toward next year's midterm elections, 25 percent say they more apt to back a candidate who supports the proposed health-care changes; 29 percent are less likely to do so. More, 45 percent, say the vote will not make much of a difference. Independents are nearly twice as likely to be swayed away from rather than toward a candidate who supports the changes (31 percent to 17 percent).

More at Memeorandum.

Sierra Leone's Developmental Crisis

My lecture today, in my World Politics class, was on developmental strategies in less developed countries.

I wrapped up some of the discussion from last week, and before starting an outline on the board, I read this passage from yesterday's article in the Los Angeles Times, "Sierra Leone Crises Have Global Reach":

Sierra Leone is one of those nations where decades of foreign aid have failed to appreciably lift the fortunes of the people. The country is a charity case: 60% of its public spending comes from foreign governments and nonprofit organizations. Since 2002, it has received more than $1 billion in aid.

Yet it has the second-highest rate of infant mortality in the world, behind Angola; even Afghanistan ranks lower. The United Nations says 1 in 8 women die giving birth in Sierra Leone; the rate in the United States is 1 in 4,800. Life expectancy in Sierra Leone is 41 years; in Bangladesh it's 60.

A decade-long civil war in the 1990s drove people from the countryside into the capital, Freetown, and today a city built for 250,000 is home to 10 times that number. Tens of thousands camp out in shacks on a lush mountainside with views of the Atlantic but no clean water or electricity.

I actually read just one sentence at a time, interspersed with commentary (and I looked around at the faces of my students, who were both kind of shocked and saddened).

We've been talking about all of these things in class, for example dependency theory critiques of foreign aid; the U.N.'s Human Developmental Index, with combines indices like life expectancy and the literacy rate to rank nations on a scale of quality of life; and the concept of "urban primacy," which is the idea that big cities are urban magnets in the Third World. There's not many prospects in working the land for most of the population (and there might not be much of an agricultural sector in Sierra Leone in any case), and overcrowding and poverty mean that huges swathes of humanity will live in shanty towns in the slums or foothills of the cities. I have a lot of students in class who've lived or traveled around the world, from Brazil to Egypt to the Philippines. Sometimes we just talk, like last Wednesday. I just asked students who had traveled in the developing world. One of my students immigrated to the United States from Argentina in 2001.

It's been a good semester, at least in that class. More about that later.

Connecting the Dots on Foot Hood Massacre

From Stephen Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn, at the Weekly Standard, "Connecting the Dots: The Shooting at Fort Hood Was No 'Mystery.' It Was An Act of Terrorism Waiting to Happen":

At about 1:30 P.M. on November 5, Army Specialist Logan Burnette, a thick-chested, baby-faced soldier scheduled to deploy to Iraq in a few short weeks, was sitting in the back row of a small auditorium-like room at the Fort Hood Army base near Killeen, Texas. Burnette was joking with several other soldiers as they waited--and waited and waited--to see a doctor for a final pre-mobilization medical review.

"Out of nowhere," Burnette later recalled, "a man stood up in uniform, screamed 'Allahu Akbar,' and proceeded to open fire on myself and the rest of my fellow soldiers sitting there." One of the shots hit Burnette on his left pinky finger. Another on his left elbow. Another in the hip. The rampage continued for several minutes.

Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood that claimed 13 lives and wounded more than 40. Three hours later, while the base was still in lockdown, an FBI spokesman dismissed suggestions that the attack was terrorism and said that a link between Hasan and terrorist organizations "is not being discussed."

Yet, a little more than a week after the shooting we know that Hasan justified suicide bombings in an Internet posting. He lectured colleagues using the rhetoric of jihad. He warned darkly about "adverse events" if Muslims were not allowed to leave military service. He repeatedly sought counsel from a radical imam with known ties to al Qaeda. He tried to convert some of his patients to Islam--many of them soldiers troubled by their near-fatal experiences with jihadists. He printed business cards that made no mention of his military service but instead identified him as an "SOA," a soldier of Allah.

And U.S. authorities knew about some of this well before the attack at Fort Hood. At Walter Reed--where Hasan spent the six years before his posting to Fort Hood in July--his superiors wondered whether he might be "psychotic" and worried that he consistently sided with jihadists over his fellow soldiers. The FBI had intercepted emails Hasan had sent to Anwar al Awlaki, an al Qaeda supporter with strong ties to three 9/11 hijackers.

But the FBI did not know all that the Army knew. And the Army did not know all that the FBI knew. The participants in an FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force discussed Hasan's case briefly and concluded that it did not warrant an investigation. If they had performed even a cursory, unobtrusive examination of this man, his contacts, and his radical views, they would have quickly turned up a great deal of troubling information.

Since the shooting there have been dozens of theories floated about Hasan's motivations. On the night after the attack, CNN's Larry King interviewed the ubiquitous "Dr. Phil" McGraw, who speculated that Hasan's counseling of traumatized soldiers might have in turn traumatized him and caused him to snap. In his November 10 remarks at Fort Hood, President Barack Obama suggested the cause of the shooting was--and may remain--a mystery. "It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy." The FBI agreed: "The investigation to date has not identified a motive, and a number of possibilities remain under consideration." One of them, according to an article in the Financial Times, was "anti-Muslim bias."

Here is another: Nidal Malik Hasan is a jihadist. That so many refuse to even consider this in the face of the overwhelming evidence might help explain why those whose job it was to keep us safe refused to see it back when it really mattered.

Read the whole thing. The remaining dicussion, on all of Nidal Hasan's extensive ties to radical Islam, I've covered here in detail.

RELATED: From ABC, "Officials: Major Hasan Sought ‘War Crimes’ Prosecution of U.S. Soldiers ."

Leftist Bloggers Applaud Anti-American Radical Who Infiltrated Minnesota Tea Party

It's not even a fine line. It's one thing to be anti-racist (i.e., to oppose racial prejudice and discrimination, as does the overwhelming majority of American citizens); and it's quite another to be anti-American (i.e., to excoriate the United States as an illegitimate regime of racism, sexism, and colonialist exploitation, as does the neo-communist left).

It turns out that hardline leftist blogs Crooks and Liars, Daily Kos, and Think Progress are cheering a communist radical who infiltrated a Minnesota tea party on November 14th. The activist, "Robert Erickson," launched an anti-immigration speech that shifted to an explicitly anti-American screed with passages that could have been lifted from an International ANSWER manifesto or Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.

And in fact, Fight Back!, a communist "people's" website has a report on the story, "Anti-Immigrant 'Tea Party' Confronted in St. Paul," and a Minnesota hardline communist and pro-amnesty group, the Immigrant Rights Action Coalition, sponsored the "speech" by "Robert Erickson." The Twin-Cities Indy-Media blog has an entry as well, "Anti-Racists Steal the Show at White Supremacist 'Tea Party Against Amnesty'." And Daily Kos provides this video:

But notice the text of the speech, especially the extremist repudiation of the United States at the conclusion (which I've highlighted in bold):

Hi, my name is Robert Erickson and I’m really excited to be here. Its people like all of you, and events like this that make our country great! Give yourselves a round of applause!

I just want to talk about a couple themes this afternoon because I love this country and I want to see America be the best place it can be.

Mr. Gutierrez is getting ready to propose an immigration bill in just a few short days, and we have to make sure he knows that we want a bill that’s tough on immigration. Now is the time for us to stand up and make our voices heard!

In Minneapolis, where I’m from, we have a huge immigrant population that’s been causing a number of problems. With the economy in recession, and so many people getting laid off, and unable to find work, immigrants should not be competing for the few jobs that are out there. Its just not fair to the folks who have a claim to this land and the right to be here. All across America, they are contributing to the flooding of our job markets making it hard for American’s to find jobs. Well I’m fed up and its time to let our politicians know that enough is enough, and we’re not gonna take it any more!

We need to secure our borders to protect our country. We need to restore order and put an end to the anarchy that’s sweeping the nation. We need tougher immigration laws to make sure that we send these people back where they came from. We need to protect the sovereignty of the real Americans. We need to hold our politicians accountable.

Its no secret that with an invasion of immigrants, comes waves of crime. We see them involved in massive theft, in murder, and bringing diseases like smallpox, which is responsible for the death of millions of Americans. These aren’t new problems though, they have been going on for hundreds of years, and continue to this day.

I say its time for us to say enough is enough! Are you with me? Are you with me? Lets send these European immigrants back where they came from! I don’t care if they are Polish, Irish, English, Italian, or Norwegian! European immigrants are responsible for the most violent and heinus crimes in the history of the world, including genocide and slavery! Its time to restore the sovereignty of people native to this land! I want more workplace raids, starting with the big banks downtown. There are thousands of illegals working in those buildings, hiding in their offices, and taking Dakota jobs. Let's round them up and ship them out. Then we need to hit them at home where they sleep, I don’t care if we separate families, they should have known better when they came here illegally!

If we aren't able to stand up to these European immigrants, who can we stand up to? We need to send every one of them back home, right now.

Thank you very much, and we’ll see you in the streets!

Columbus go home! Columbus go home! Columbus go home!

Look, I'll be honest: I've been to enough tea parties to know that sometimes the sound systems are poor and a good many of the speeches are dry, especially from someone who would be a no-name like "Robert Erickson" (the difference, of course, is that the tea partiers are patriots). Plus, the Minnesota gig was a small gathering of about 40 people, and most likely few in the audience were really listening carefully to this man's unoriginal speech, and thus his concluding repudiation of America. If they had (and for example, if I would have been in attendance), it's unlikely this guy would have been able to finish his talk. Organizers for the local events I've worked with have in fact been prepared for counter-protests and radical pranksters. My homies really don't cotton to folks like this, and some of the town hall events locally were tense protests with conservatives facing off against ObamaCare's communist contingents (see, "Astroturf at Adam Schiff Town Hall: ACORN, AARP, Organizing for America, SEIU, and Stalinist Apparatchiks for ObamaCare!").

And recall that I actually know a little about what it's like to infilitrate behind partisan enemy lines. While it was the Minnesota tea partiers WHO POLITELY ATTENTED TO THIS COMMUNIST'S anti-American harangue, at the ANSWER events I've covered in recent months, it was THESE GROUPS' PARTY CADRES WHO who excoriated the United States, called for the defeat of the American "empire" in Afghanistan, and exclaimed "'we need to take 'em down!" while decrying the "racist" American regime.

And what's really cool here is that Crooks and Liars, Daily Kos, and Think Progress are all pretty much down with that!

International ANSWER Thugs Attack Tea Party Protesters in Florida

These are the hardline communists I've covered in my numerous reports on International ANSWER. Via Michelle Malkin, "Far Left’s ANSWER Goons Attack Foes of Illegal Immigration":

Here's the blurb at the video:

Supporters of President obama's Amnesty plans attacked Tea Party Against Amnesty & Illegal Immigration demonstrators in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida on November 14, 2009. One of the men attacked is 62 years old. Dave Caulkett of FLIMEN (Floridians for Immigration Enforcement) is assaulted and then kicked in the face while he is down. The other camera man from the Tea Party is hit with several signs ...

Those attacking the Americans that oppose Amnesty for illegal aliens were organized by ANSWER Florida.

Also, from Gateway Pundit, "Commie Che-Supporting Goons Beat Tea Party Protesters In Florida (Video)." Gateway links to ANSWER Florida's page. Plus, from, Americans for Legal Immigration, here's the announcemnt from these communist thugs:

Racism is like anything else in this world: in order to make it fall, you must smash it! That is why we are calling on all people to come out tomorrow, to organize a militant confrontation with the so-called “tea baggers.” Beating back these forces will require us to organize together, take the streets, fight the racists wherever they show their faces and drive them out of every community.

The racist demonization of immigrants only serves the interest of the ruling class during this historical economic crisis. The same bankers, CEO’s, and politicians, both Democrat and Republican, which have for decades devastated the economies of countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, have once again devastated the economy in this country. The same ruling class that devastates the lives of working people in other nations through war and super-exploitation are the ones throwing workers out of their homes, denying them healthcare, and laying them off from their jobs in this country.

Racism is consciously used as a tool by the ruling class because they know that as long as working people are divided and fighting each other, the people are not fighting the bankers, CEO’s, and politicians. Only under a brutal system that puts profit over people can you have a whole section of society whose only crime is being forced from their nations because of imperialism and forced to work in the most hostile of conditions in this country. Only racism can justify this reality.

The continual devastation of working people because of this crisis, however, is not the fault of one group of workers. On October 28th, President Obama signed the largest military budget in U.S. history-$680 billion dollars, which does not include the cost of the criminal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The new administration is also continuing to hand out the $9.5 trillion dollars in working people’s tax dollars to bailout the already rich.

The money to end the suffering of all working people tomorrow is there. It is our choice as to whether we will allow the right of a few to profit from labor of workers to continue, or whether we will rise up as one class of working people to and take political power into our own hands.

We are building a movement that will beat back racism so that working people of all nationalities can unite and fight against our one, shared enemy: capitalism. Amnesty, full rights for ALL immigrants, is a demand that should be raised not just by the immigrant communities, but by every working class community in our struggle to solve this crisis by our own means.

Join us tomorrow, and join us in building the movement against racism and capitalist exploitation!

See also, Red Alerts, "Florida A.N.S.W.E.R. Chapter Beats 62-Year-Old Man on Street Corner!":

Sounds like a call to violence to me. Also notice how A.N.S.W.E.R. references the various “tea party” groups as “tea baggers” much the way the Democrats and MSNBC do. When will Keith Olbermann take responsibility for the actions his heated rhetoric causes?

But more realistically, when will A.N.S.W.E.R. be held responsible for the violence and mayhem they create in our communities? No matter where you stand on this issue, all people of good conscience can agree that two guys beating the hell out of an old man on a corner is wrong, can’t we?

GOP Nomination is Palin's for the Taking

Back in July I wrote an analysis, "Can Palin Win the 2012 GOP Nomination?" So far, I'm happy to say, much of my argument has held up.

For example, Rasmussen has the latest poll numbers for Palin among GOP voters, "59% of GOP Voters Say Palin Shares Their Values." (Via Memeorandum.)

But more closely in line with my earlier thinking is Walter Shapiro at his essay, "How Palin Could Win the 2012 GOP Nomination":

Undoubtedly at this very moment, two saffron-robed monks in a monastery north of Katmandu are earnestly discussing Sarah Palin's presidential prospects. In the favelas of Rio, the normally fierce arguments about the World Cup and the 2016 Olympics are surely taking a back seat to high-decibel debates over the pre-publication excerpts from Going Rogue.

This is Palin time whether you believe that she is "The Divine Sarah" (as Sarah Bernhardt was once known) or the 21st century version of Barry Goldwater who will lead the Republican Party into the abyss. True believers stress her megawatt incandescence and her Facebook leadership of the conservative tea-party movement at time when all other Republicans seem pallid. Skeptics scoff at the hoopla and argue that the Republican establishment would never nominate someone who, according to a recent CNN/Opinion Research poll, 71 percent of voters describe as "not qualified to be president."

More than two years before the 2012 Iowa caucuses, presidential speculation should come with a soothsayer's money-back guarantee. But what all the discussions of Palin's future miss is the way that Republican Party rules are made-to-order for a well-funded insurgent named Sarah to sweep the primaries before anyone figures out how to stop her. If Palin can maintain, say, 35-percent support in a multi-candidate presidential field, then she is the odds-on favorite for the GOP nomination.

Check the whole post.

Shapiro adds something that few analysts have addressed: The party rules for the GOP presidential nominating system. Whereas the Democratic Party's proportional representation helped drag out last year's primary brawl between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the Republicans' winner-take-all system is designed to produce a frontrunner and party nominee relatively quickly.

Shapiro cites Elaine Kamarck's new book, Primary Politics: How Presidential Candidates Have Shaped the Modern Nominating System. But see also, William G. Mayer, The Front-Loading Problem in Presidential Nominations.

Also important, and something I stressed in my earlier article, is money: How will Palin's campaign war chest stack up by the end of next year? The timing of her book launch could hardly be better for the politics of presidential camapaign finance. If early fundraising in the 2008 campaign is any indication (tracking trends before any primaries are held), Palin will need upwards of $200 million in the bank (see, "Money's Going to Talk in 2008: 'Entry Fee' for Presidential Race Could Be $100 Million"). My sense is that no other candidate will be able to raise as much as Palin, and only Mitt Romney will give her a credible challenge in the money race, due to his personal wealth.

It's all speculation at this point, but that's what pundits do.

RELATED: Liz Sidoti, "2012 GOP Field Wide Open: GOP Wannabes Jockey for 2012."

Sarah Palin and Going Rogue

This is going to be quite a week for the politics of personal destruction. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's autobiography, Going Rogue, is out today. Ms. Palin's whirlwind book tour begins with a high-profile appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show, as well as a very personal interview with Barbara Walters, portions of which will appear this morning on Good Morning America. ABC's Kate Snow has a story, "Game On: Palin Book Blitz Begins: Former McCain Aides Rebut Claims in 'Going Rogue'."

One thing to watch out for is whether critics of Ms. Palin have actually read her book. On yesterday's Fox News Sunday panel, Liz Cheney offered the best comments because she said she'd actually read portions of the book. Along those lines, check out Melanie Kirkpatrick's book review, at the Wall Street Journal, "Her Side of the Story":

She discusses her coming of age in the "new frontier" state of Alaska; her personal faith journey; her experiences with marriage and motherhood, including two miscarriages, a special-needs child and a pregnant teenage daughter; and the free-market convictions that have guided her political career. As a politician, she comes across as a prodigious worker capable of mastering complicated issues—not least the energy policies that matter so much to Alaska's economy—and of building bridges to Democrats.

Through it all, Mrs. Palin emerges as a new style of feminist: a politician who took on the Ole Boy network and won; a wife with a supportive husband whose career takes second place to hers; and a mother who, unlike working women of an earlier age, isn't shy about showcasing her family responsibilities. She writes with sensitivity and affection about her gay college roommate, and she confesses her anguish when she found out that she was carrying a baby with Down syndrome. That experience, she says, helped her to understand why a woman might be tempted to have an abortion. This is not the prejudiced, dim-witted ideologue of the popular liberal imagination.

Perhaps the most important issue raised by Palin's reemergence this week at the center of national politics is, again, whether she's qualified for the presidency. Of course, by just having run as a major party vice-presidential nominee she's broken perhaps the ultimate threshold, although people will continue to attack her as an undignified backwoods hick. Significantly, there's probably an inverse relationship between Sarah Palin's prospects and the radical attacks against her. Not only is the left's rabid demonization of Palin perhaps the best indicator of the former Alaska governor's viability, but the deeper the levels of leftist secular demonology, the higher Palin's favorables among moderates are likely to go.

We still have over a year until the 2012 campaign gets seriously under way. During that time, Ms. Palin will no doubt be continuing her aggressive self-marketing. There's no one on the right who inspires more passion from the faithful, and that's pretty much what it takes to win the presidential nomination. So, Palin just needs to keep chuggin'. Things are going her way.

(And don't put too much faith in these early public opinion polls, for example, Gary Langer's, "Sarah Palin: Rogue for President?" Palin's got lots of time to work her wonders with the American public, and I can guarantee that the left's demonization campaign will only work to increase Palin's favorables over time.)

More at Memeorandum.

Liz Cheney on Fox News Sunday, November 15, 2009

Actually, the whole panel includes Liz Cheney, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol, and Juan Williams. But Ms. Cheney is so clear on the issues it's stunning. And not just on the New York terror trials, either. On Sarah Palin's potential presidential run, Ms. Cheney suggests that Republicans in 2012 will be running to clean up the damage of the Barack Obama years:

See Gateway Pundit for Ms. Cheney's comments on Palin, "Liz Cheney: Whoever Leads GOP in 2012 Will Have to Undo the Damage From Obama’s Disastrous Policies (Video)."

Marisa Miller at Victoria's Secret Fashion Show!

Well, my good friend Kathy at Hummers and Cigarettes gave me a little ribbing for my recent post on Denise Milani. But I doubt many would take issue with Marisa Miller at Victoria's Secret! Just about everyone loves a good fashion show, of course, and throw in some of the world's superest supermodels and everyone's a winner!

Marisa Miller's Victoria's Secret page is here. The screencaps are from from the hot video at the link!

The fashion show airs December 1st on CBS. Check out the promotional page, "Victoria's Secret Fashion Show - Models, Videos, Photos."

When Some Bloggers Really Should Hang Up Their Keyboards

It's pretty interesting when your blog gets picked up around the Internet as "all that is wrong" with the rightroots blogosphere. But that's apparently what happened to some extent with my post yesterday, "Bowing Before Monarchs and Tyrants: Obama 'Restores' America's World Standing With His Head Down - UPDATE: REAGAN DIDN'T BOW!!"

A key case in point is Charles Cooper's blog at CBS News. I've included a screencap because this post badly needs a correction, "Firing A Shot Across Obama's Bow." The first few paragraphs provide a clue to Cooper's idiocy:

The usual crowd of armchair patriots is having a collective fit over President Obama's decision to greet Japan's Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko with a bow.

A bow?

I kid thee not. This post by Donald Douglass at the aptly-named blog American Power was representative of the sort of apoplectic commentary triggered by the president's visit with the royal couple as he arrived at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo on Saturday.

"Obama's breach of protocol is of a piece with the substance of his foreign policy. He means to teach Americans to bow before monarchs and tyrants. He embodies the ideological multiculturalism that sets the United States on the same plane as other regimes based on tribal privilege and royal bloodlines. He gives expressive form to the idea that the United States now willingly prostrates itself before the rest of the world. He declares that the United States is a country like any other, only worse, because we have so much for which to apologize."

Don't let appearances throw you. Turns out that Douglass is an asssistant professor of political science - one who also declares that he despises "the hard-left radical agenda and discourse" (which I gather includes Mr. Obama and his cohort of closet commies.) His class must be a delight.

Okay, just a few objections:

One, Cooper misspells my name. I'm not sure why exactly, but my guess is that having checked my sidebar profile, with my picture there, Cooper noticed my black American background, and then inferred incorrectly that my last name must be spelled with a double "s". It's not an uncommon mistake, actually, because for some reason folks in the past have automatically assumed that I'm somehow related to Frederick Douglass. This mostly happens among people who've only listened to my name, not actually read it, so Cooper loses double points for poor reading comprehension. (I'll leave aside the question of whether the "Douglass" inference is a form of subtle racial profiling, although clearly to be black with that last name means you must be related to the great 19th century emancipator.)

Second, Cooper should actually take a minute to comprehend what's written and linked to at the post. As I wrote there, "The headline up top is borrowed from Power Line, 'Why is This Man Bowing?' ...", and the block quotation that follows (Cooper's second-to-last paragraph above) is Scott Johnson's analysis, not mine. So why not take issue with Power Line? Too quick off the mark, I'd guess. But even an unranked blogger of the lowest 9th tier wouldn't make such a pathetic, rookie mistake.

Finally, Cooper engages in a rank ad hominem attack at the end of the passage, where he notes that it "Turns out that Douglass is an assistant professor of political science ..." My academic position is totally irrelevant here. This is actually a variant of the "I can't believe you're a professor" slur, which I wrote about previously (see, "You're a Professor, Really?"). Recall that it's not only one of the most stupid leftist attacks, but one of the most intolerant, for it assumes that conservatives shouldn't be inside today's college classrooms.

Cooper's post is so bad, in fact, that CBS News should be embarrassed.

But actually, Cooper's not alone in today's dunce cap hall of shame.

It turns out that Darren Lenard Hutchinson, whose blog is "Dissenting Justice," and who is a Professor of Law at American University, has joined the follies with a demonstration that he ought not branch out into interdisciplinary work in comparative governmental studies.

Note first that Hutchinson goes all in with the demonizing headline at his entry, "Rightwing Fecal Matter Alert: Obama Bows in Japan, World Ends."

Oh brother. Fecal matter? That's harsh, if not a bit silly.

Too bad Professor Hutchingson couldn't follow up the trash talk with some solid analysis. For example, from the post:

The rightwing has spewed smelly fecal matter before, but the latest is the most odoriferous in recent memory. Rightwing bloggers and other commentators are having a nervous breakdown because President Obama bowed when he met with Emperor Akihito of Japan ....

The blog American Power keeps the stench going with an essay "Bowing Before Monarchs and Tyrants." Video footage of Obama greeting Akihito accompanies the article lunacy.

The blog's description of Akihito as a "monarch" or "tyrant" demonstrates the paucity of facts in contemporary conservative commentary. A real monarch (as opposed to a constitutional monarch) exercises absolute power and dominion in a country. Emperor Akihito, however, is merely a figurehead.

The Constitution of Japan gives executive power to the Cabinet and legislative authority to the Diet. The Constitution also creates a national judicial system. Furthermore, it states that "[t]he people have the inalienable right to choose their public officials and to dismiss them."

By contrast, the Constitution of Japan describes the Emperor as a "symbol." The Constitution also states that the "Emperor shall perform only such acts in matters of state as are provided for in this Constitution and he shall not have powers related to government" (italics added).

Even though Akihito is simply a symbol of state, American Power argues that Obama's bow shows that "the United States now willingly prostrates itself before the rest of the world." This statement is simply diarrhea. It also misuses terminology.

First, note how Professor Hutchinson also fails to realize, despite the citation and the block quote, that the analysis at the post is Scott Johnson's, not mine. Thus, duh, Professor Hutchinson should be attacking Power Line for its "fecal" material instead of American Power. (And I guess it's a good thing that Hutchinson's screwing up as a law professor who blogs and not as a practicing defense attorney, for I'd hate to think about how such stupid mistakes might end up putting people behind bars.)

Professor Hutchinson, further, suffers from a basic ignorance of comparative political institutions, and especially an ignorance of the concept of a constitutional monarchy. His mistake is to confuse the specific enumerated powers of the Japanese emperor with that of the generalized model of monarchical authority in a political regime featuring a king, queen, prince, emperor, or emir, etc. For whether the office is head of government or head of state (or both), it doesn't matter how real authority is vested. That is, it matters not so much whether we have a "figurehead" or an "absolutist", it's that there is some sort of hereditary ruler at all, i.e., a monarch. Indeed, this is basic governmental studies. As Wikipedia's entry on the specifics of constitutional monarchy indicates:

A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state within the perimeters of a written (i.e., codified), unwritten (i.e., uncodified) or blended constitution. It differs from absolute monarchy in that an absolute monarch serves as the sole source of political power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution.

Professor Hutchinson does no better, really, on the more narrow controversy of appropriate diplomatic protocol. Americans citizens, least of all the President of the United States, do not bow to foreign monarchs. The president is not a subject of the Emperor of Japan, or any other of the world's kings. A slight nodding of the head while shaking hands is all that's needed, and in fact no previous president has prostrated themselves anywhere near the manner that President Obama did this weekend.

Leftists accuse conservatives of extreme wingnut partisanship when what's really at issue is the completely unnecessary obsequiousness of President Bow-down-a.

And one more thing about Professor Hutchinson: My post does not call the emperor a "tyrant." The reference, at both Power Line and American Power, is to the president's previous breach of diplomatic protocol in bowing to the Saudi king last april. At that time the White House denied Obama's bow. There's no question about it this time.

It's bad enough that we're having this ugly partisan split on the appropriate diplomatic niceties for an American president abroad. But it's especially bad in my case to be attacked so ignorantly by a blogger at one of the three major television networks AND by a professor of law at a major U.S. university based in the nation's capital. I would expect more from people in such positions, much more.

Thus, I call for CBS' Charles Coooper and American University's Darren Lenard Hutchinson to post corrections and apologies to their blogs. And THAT would be the appropriate protocol, given the magnitude of their mutual asshattery.

RELATED: From Jake Tapper, "On President Obama's Bow to the Japanese Emperor, An Academic Friend Writes That Both the Left and the Right Are Wrong." (Via Memeorandum.)

Big Weekend for Visiting Friends and Family at American Power

Friday morning I wrote this on my Facebook profile:

Got a big weekend friends, grading, visiting a political scientist-friend from the East Coast at the Queen Mary tomorrow, visiting with my sister and her family tomorrow night ... Well, better get busy! :)

So, I thought I might as well share a little report of how things turned out.

The "visiting political scientist-friend" is Professor Daniel Nexon from Georgetown University. Dan was in town for the annual meeting of the Social Science History Association, held at the Queen Mary Hotel, at the Port of Long Beach. (The association website is here, the call for papers here, and the schedule of academic panels is here). Dan e-mailed me a month ago to give me the heads up. I picked him up yesterday at 9:00am to get some breakfast. Here's the shot of the liner as I was walking in:

The hotel's main desk is on the third floor. Here's the shot from the gangway as I was walking up:

Dan and I drove across the channel over to the Shoreline Marina in downtown Long Beach. As we we're walking back out after eating, I snapped a quick shot back at the Queen Mary from the parking lot:

I did not take pictures of Dan, for a couple of reasons: One is that I didn't really think about it until we were almost done having breakfast, and two is that this was the first time I'd met Dan in person, and I wasn't comfortable taking Dan's picture. We met online about three years ago. He left a snarky response to a comment I'd left at Democracy Arsenal. This was before I started blogging, although Dan was blogging at Duck of Minerva, an international relations group blog. Currently, Dan is on academic leave from his department and is now working as an policy analyst at the Department of Defense. Being how Dan's involved in fairly high-level policy work, I thought I'd hold off on personal pictures until later. Dan's Georgetown faculty page is here, in any case. And here's the Princeton University Press page for his recent book, The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe:Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change.

I might be seeing Dan at the American Political Science Association meeting next September, and if so, I'll check with him then about posting personal pics online.

In the meanwhile, this is my sister Tracy:

Tracy came to visit at my home last night with her husband and daughter. Tracy gave me permission to publish her picture. Recall that I'm being careful about posting family information, but I actually haven't had any problems since publishing my Halloween photo essay a couple of weeks ago. So, let's keep our fingers crossed for continued respectfulness among commenters here, etc.

Tracy has a show dog, a Doberman Pinscher, named Alex, who is almost two years old:

When Tracy first told me she'd gotten a Doberman I laughed with her about it. When we were kids we saw They Only Kill Their Masters, a 1972 crime-suspense flick with James Garner and Katherine Ross.

I think we were actually really scared of Dobermans for a while after seeing that, LOL! But if Alex is any indication, Dobermans are just the sweetest, most gentle animals you'd want to be around. Alex is well trained and not rambunctious at all. He's gentle and playful, and loves kisses and petting. I didn't have time to ask my sister, but Alex has done well in dog show competitions. Also, this is a breeding dog, so Tracy's spoken to me about breeding inquiries she's received.

So, that was my big Saturday. The only thing I've left out is the grading!

In fact , I need to read about a dozen semester paper assignments today, and I'll probably watch some football. I'll be online later this morning and afternoon, as usual, for some hot blogging. And check back for my hot Marisa Miller entry tonight for sure!

*****

P.S. I just noticed the second shot of Alex includes Barack Obama's mug on my TV in the living room. That TV is a 20-inch Magnavox. We had a big Sony Bravia Widescreen, but my youngest son -- during a tantrum a year or so ago -- threw a big hard-plastic Incredible Hulk toy into the screen, the impact of which pierced the television and destroyed the picture. Those things are expensive! So, hopefully we'll get another 32-incher in there pretty soon.

More tonight!

So You Want to Be a Rock and Roll Star...

You know what it's like: There are some songs, like Jimi Hendrix's, "Purple Haze," or The Stones', "Jumping Jack Flash," where the guitar introductions practically clinch the recordings all by themselves. That's how it used to be for me, with Patti Smith's cover of "So You Want To Be A Rock 'N' Roll Star." (Wikipedia's entry on The Byrds' orginal is here, with discussion of numerous covers.) I've included video of both live and studio versions of Patti Smith:

I've yet to update on the Victoria's Secret fashion show (Marisa Miller is phenomenal, so check back soon on that); and in the meanwhile, see Snark 'n Boobs, who cross-posts at IOWNTHEWORLD (with stuff like this mind-boggling entry).

Plus, don't forget Theo Spark's, "Saturday Totty ..."

Fort Hood's Military Victims Effectively Barred From Collecting Damages

Not unexpected, but something of a bummer nevertheless. From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, "Fort Hood's Military Victims Blocked From Getting Damages":

Legal experts say families of active-duty military members who were killed during the recent Fort Hood shootings or the military members themselves who were wounded probably will be unable to win court judgments for damages even if they can prove the Army was negligent in not acting to remove the alleged shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

Andrew Adair, a Washington attorney, and others say a 1950 Supreme Court ruling would stand in the way of such damage claims.

The restriction would not apply to the lone civilian, Mike Cahill, 62, who was killed in last week's attack. Nor would it apply to injured civilians, including police officer Kimberly Munley, who was involved in a shootout with Hasan.

In the 1950 ruling, known as the Feres Doctrine after one of the plaintiffs that brought the case, the high court said active-duty members of the military cannot sue for damages if the death or injury is "incident to military service."

"Even if the higher-ups in the military have knowledge that someone is a loose cannon and take no action, there is no recourse. That's where the law is," Adair said.

More at the link.

The legal doctrine is based on Feres v. United States (1950). Here's a guiding passage:

We know of no American law which ever has permitted a soldier to recover for negligence, against either his superior officers or the Government he is serving. Nor is there any liability 'under like circumstances,' for no private individual has power to conscript or mobilize a private army with such authorities over persons as the Government vests in echelons of command. The nearest parallel, even if we were to treat 'private individual' as including a state, would be the relationship between the states and their militia. But if we indulge plaintiffs the benefit of this comparison, claimants cite us no state, and we know of none, which has permitted members of its militia to maintain tort actions for injuries suffered in the service, and in at least one state the contrary has been held to be the case. It is true that if we consider relevant only a part of the circumstances and ignore the status of both the wronged and the wrongdoer in these cases we find analogous private liability. In the usual civilian doctor and patient relationship, there is of course a liability for malpractice. And a landlord would undoubtedly be held liable if an injury occurred to a tenant as the result of a negligently maintained heating plant. But the liability assumed by the Government here is that created by 'all the circumstances,' not that which a few of the circumstances might create. We find no parallel liability before, and we think no new one has been created by, this Act. Its effect is to waive immunity from recognized causes of action and was not to visit the Government with novel and unprecedented liabilities.

This is the law of sovereign immunity. More here.

RELATED: From the Washington Post, "Mourners Grieve for Soldiers Killed at Fort Hood."

'Just Wrong and Unconscionable': Some Fear Bush Administration Could Become Target in 9/11 Trial

The quote in the headline above's from former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge. He notes, regarding the Obama administration's decision to hold civil trials for 9/11 terrorists, "If we discover later that it's really just a facade to delve into a fishing expedition, I would find that just unacceptable, outrageous and a further distortion of the system. ... "If it's subterfuge for the fishing expedition, that's just wrong and unconscionable."

And at the video, former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey, from Fox, "Bush Attorney General: 9/11 Trial Offers Jihadists Platform":

Beer-Swilling Stimulus: Taxpayers to Fork Over $17 Million for Billy Carter Gas Station Preservation!

Wonders never cease! From the Los Angeles Times, "Billy Carter's Old Gas Station: A National Monument?":

In the age of the $787-billion stimulus package, it is, perhaps, a modest question:

Should the American taxpayer foot the bill to enshrine the gas station run by the late Billy Carter -- the beer-swilling, wisecracking, self-professed redneck brother of our 39th president?

Located in the middle of tiny Plains -- still the world's most famous peanut town some 28 years after the Carter presidency -- the station was transformed into a museum last year by a civic group that owns the property.

Most locals agree it has been rendered cleaner and more pleasant than it was under Billy's proprietorship, when it served as an improvised beer joint, gambling hall and grease-stained agora for homespun philosophizing.

Its claim to historical significance came during Jimmy Carter's 1976 presidential run, when reporters mobbed Plains and transformed the station into a sort of unofficial headquarters.

It became the setting for story after story about Jimmy's little brother, Billy, his down-home manners and epigrammatic wit (e.g., "Beer is not a good cocktail-party drink -- especially in a home where you don't know where the bathroom is") and the candidate's rural roots.

In a reminiscence posted at the museum, Billy's family writes that both press and tourists back then "seemed to be amazed a place such as the Station actually existed outside bad, B-grade movies about Southern moonshine runners."

Last month, the House approved a measure that would incorporate the station into the Jimmy Carter National Historic Site, a National Park Service operation that runs a number of Carter-related buildings in Plains. A similar bill is under consideration in the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The legislation calls for the park service to take over the gas station, plus an old farmhouse that Jimmy and wife Rosalynn lived in from 1956 to 1961. Both would be donated by the current owner, the Plains Better Hometown Program.

Really. This is no joke.

The Congressional Budget Office analysis is here: "H.R. 1471 - A bill to expand the boundary of the Jimmy Carter National Historic Site in the state of Georgia, to redesignate the unit as a National Historic Park, and for other purposes."

Not sure if authorized funding will come from the Obama/Democratic Economic Recovery Act, but no doubt -- one way or another -- some stimulus money's going make it down to Old Billy's Bodega.

Shocka! Obama to Congress: You Can't Handle the Truth! - "Hold Off on Fort Hood Hearings"

From the Houston Chronicle, "Obama to Congress: Hold Off Fort Hood hearings: He Urges Lawmakers to Let Army Finish its Investigation First." And here's Obama, at the video:

I know there will also be inquiries by Congress, and there should. But all of us should resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into the political theater that sometimes dominates the discussion here in Washington. The stakes are far too high.

You betcha! We wouldn't want Congess looking into Nidal Malik Hasan's militant Islamist ties. Way to kneecap the truth, Obambi!

RELATED: Doug Ross, "Progressive Groups to Honor KSM with NYC Ticker-Tape Parade."

Bowing Before Monarchs and Tyrants: Obama 'Restores' America's World Standing With His Head Down - UPDATE: REAGAN DIDN'T BOW!!

The headline up top is borrowed from Power Line, "Why is This Man Bowing?" (via Memeorandum):

Obama's breach of protocol is of a piece with the substance of his foreign policy. He means to teach Americans to bow before monarchs and tyrants. He embodies the ideological multiculturalism that sets the United States on the same plane as other regimes based on tribal privilege and royal bloodlines. He gives expressive form to the idea that the United States now willingly prostrates itself before the rest of the world. He declares that the United States is a country like any other, only worse, because we have so much for which to apologize.

More Video: Infidels Are Cool.

Also blogging:

* American Digest, "If a US President Had Just Done This in January 1942 It Would Have Saved Everyone a Lot of Trouble."

Another Black Conservative, "Bow Wow! Obama Bows Again."

* Astute Bloggers, "FOR BOWING DOWN TO ANOTHER FOREIGN KING, OBAMA HAS ONCE AGAIN PROVEN HE IS UNFIT FOR OFFICE AND NEEDS TO BE EFFIN IMPEACHED."

* Atlas Shrugs, "Obowa: Another Country, Another Deep Bow."

* Berman Post, "Obama Bows to The Emperor of Japan."

* The Blog Prof, "Video: Obama Drops Yet Another Contact Lens in Front of Royalty."

* Chicks on the Right, "Inappropriate."

* Confederate Yankee, "O-Bow-Ma."

* Don Surber, "Obama, Bow Wow Wow."

* Fausta's Blog, "Say No to the Bow."

* Gateway Pundit, "He Did It Again… Obama Gives Japanese Emperor a Waiter Bow."

* Hot Air, "Obamateurism of the Day."

* Hot Air Pundit, "Video: Obama Bows To The Emperor Of Japan."

* Left Coast Rebel, "Obama Bowing to Japan Emperor Akihito."

* Macsmind, "President "O-Bow" to Anyone."

* Maggie's Farm, "Life Imitates Satire."

* Neo-Neocon, "Obama: “Ashamed of His Country but Arrogant About Himself”."

* Nice Deb, "Obama Bows Yet Again."

* Protein Wisdom, "Obama “Bows Deeply” - UPDATED: Attention Leftists!."

* Riehl World View, "The Boy King: Where Do O Bow Now?"

* Ruby Slippers, "Take a Bow Barack."

* Sandra Rose, "OBAMA BOWS DOWN AGAIN."

* Snooper's Report, "The Bowing Moron In the Marxist House...He's An ASSHAT."

* Sister Toldjah, "I Guess This Wasn’t Really a “Bow” Either, Eh, Mr. President?"

*Sweetness and Light, "Obama Bows Again – Japanese Emperor."

* Weasel Zippers, "Does Obama Think He ONLY Represents America When He Bows Inferiorly?: BO Bows Again..This Time To Emporer of Japan, Akihito...(Please Bring Your Best Snark)."

*WyBlog, "Obama bows before Japanese Emperor Akihito."

If I missed anyone, just let me know in the comments, or by e-mail, and I'll add your link to the roundup!

Added: Linked at Orthogonal Musings, "I Think I Finally Get It."

Plus, Carolyn Tackett, "For the Love of God, STAND UP!," and SWAC Girl, "Obama's Worldwide Apology Tour Continues ..." Also, Israel Matsav, "He Won't Bow to Netanyahu Because Israel Didn't Murder Americans," and Cold Fury, "“How to Greet a Japanese Emperor”."

**********

UPDATE: President Ronald Reagan didn't bow to Emperor Hirohito (other way around, actually). See, Meredith Jessup, "This is Getting Embarrassing...":