A Tale of Two Times: Divergent Takes on Flight 253 Terror Attempt

I simply don't trust mainstream media outlets these days. Often when citing articles from the "legacy" press, I'll note a quick disclaimer to indicate bias, ommission, etc. On top of that, I rarely read the newspaper editorials any more, with the exception of the Wall Street Journal (which has by far the most rigorous op-ed page in the country). I did happen to read two recent editorials at the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times on the attempted terror attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253. I'm not making too big a deal here, but since NYT is getting some play at Memeorandum, I'll make a comparison for readers.

Note first the editorial at the New York Times, "Why Didn’t They See It?" I was especially intrigued by the very first couple of paragraphs:

It will take some time before all the facts about the Christmas Day terrorism plot are known and analyzed. One thing is already clear: The government has to urgently improve its ability to use the reams of intelligence it receives every day on suspected terrorists and plots. That was supposed to have been addressed after the infamous “failure to connect the dots” before the 9/11 attacks. The echoes of the earlier disaster in this near-disaster are chilling.

There were plenty of clues about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man accused of trying to blow a hole in the side of Northwest Flight 253. But no one in the vast (and vastly expensive) intelligence and homeland security bureaucracy put them together.

The remainder of the editorial is less unsure about the causes of the security failure. And in fact by the end of the piece it's pretty much the case that NYT's editors have enough "facts" right now to know almost exactly what happened on Christmas Day and what needs to be done. As we see just a few paragraphs later:

Following the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, Congress created the National Counterterrorism Center to unify the government’s data collection and ordered the welter of intelligence agencies to put aside their rivalries and share what they know and suspect. Everyone insists that is happening; but still something went terribly wrong.

According to The Times, a preliminary review ordered by President Obama has found that because of human error, the agencies were still looking at discrete pieces of the puzzle without adequately checking other available databases — and, in some cases, were not sharing what they knew. The State Department says that it relayed the father’s warnings to the National Counterterrorism Center. C.I.A. officials in Nigeria prepared a separate report on Mr. Abdulmutallab that was sent to the C.I.A. headquarters but not to other agencies. At this point, we don’t know who was told of the N.S.A. intercepts.

Because editorials are so influential (especially this newspaper's), the take at NYT plays perfectly into the meme that the administration bears little culpability for the massive security breach, and that it'll take some kind of big blue ribbon panel, on top of a host of congressional committees, to get to the bottom of things (at the lowest levels of bureaucratic organization, naturally). But of course we know now that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has long been known to intelligence agencies and foreign ministries. The young would-be bomber was placed on U.S. government "watch lists" (but not "no fly lists"). And his father warned the U.S. consulate in Nigeria that his son had been "radicalized" and warned of plans for a strike on the U.S. Plus, the British government, long considered our closest ally in the war on terror, had denied Umar Farouk a passport entry visa this year, which some have argued may well have thwarted another al Qaeda attack in Britain.

These puzzle pieces emerged within days of the Christmas bombing attempt. And more information keeps coming. See for example, Hot Air, "Newsweek: Saudis briefed top Obama official about “underwear bombers” in October; Update: MI5 knew of bomber three years ago," Stormbringer, "THE SYSTEM DIDN'T FAIL . . .," and Times of London, "MI5 knew of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's UK extremist links," via Memeorandum.

Contrast the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times, and its editorial, "Screening for terrorists: A Christmas Day incident shows that human error remains the key element." Note right away that this piece came out on December 29, just days after the bombing attempt (whereas this particular New York Times' editorial, also focusing on causes, was published today). Plus there's little ambiguity to LAT's take, as evidenced by the "human element" at the title of the editorial. This factor, not the breakdown in TSA screening procedures, is the key variable under consideration at the Times:

It was only thanks to chance or ineptness that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab failed to quickly detonate a plastic explosive and destroy a Detroit-bound Northwest airliner and the 290 people it was carrying. Abdulmutallab, a recent resident of Britain who says he received training in Yemen, wasn't on a no-fly or watch list and was spared a pat-down search that could have revealed that he was carrying a weapon. Had his name been flagged, more attention might have been paid to the fact that he paid cash for his ticket and checked no baggage.

Actually, Abdulmutallab's mission could have been aborted even earlier. When he purchased his ticket from Lagos to Amsterdam on Dec. 16, a Nigerian official said, his passport and U.S. visa were scanned and his name was checked against a watch list. Despite his father's intervention, Abdulmutallab's name hadn't been added to either a 3,400-name no-fly list or a 14,000-name roster of persons who could be subjected to intensive searches. His name was added to a 555,000-name list of persons considered suspicious but less of a threat. Apparently he would have received greater scrutiny if he applied for another visa. The problem was that he already had one.

This sorry sequence of events recalls nothing so much as the failure of intelligence officials to correlate available data about the plotters of the 9/11 attacks. In both cases the problem wasn't a lack of information but an inability to sift through copious data. But some needles in a haystack are more conspicuous than others. On Monday, President Obama announced a review of the way names are added to watch lists. The answer isn't to load the lists with more names. What is required, at every stage of the process, is alertness to particularly suggestive details -- and, lest abuses occur, periodic reevaluation of names added in the past.

Some experts suggest that this incident demonstrates the need for vastly expanded use of high-technology screening devices. Before Congress accepts that counsel, however, it needs to focus on something that seemingly eluded officials in this case: the human factor.

In any case, relatedly, Jennifer Rubin has a larger analysis of the adminstration's deer-in-the-headlights response to Flight 253, "No Mystery":

As this Politico story notes, the Christmas Day bombing plot has shaken the Obama administration and his supporters, leaving the latter flummoxed. They can’t seem to understand the president’s clueless reaction, which verged on peevish resentment over the interruption to his vacation:

Over the course of five days, Obama’s reaction ranged from low-keyed to reassuring to, finally, a vow to find out what went wrong. The episode was a baffling, unforced error in presidential symbolism, hardly a small part of the presidency, and the moment at which yet another of the old political maxims that Obama had sought to transcend – the Democrats’ vulnerability on national security – reasserted itself.

What is remarkable is that there seems to be some mystery as to why Obama behaved as he did:

Explanations of Obama’s low-key reaction in the face of a terror attack include the characteristic caution of a president who resists jumping to conclusions and being pushed to action. They also include the White House’s belief – disproven repeatedly in 2009 – that it can evade the clichéd rules of politics, which include a suspicion of Democratic leadership on national security. Only Sunday night, when criticism of the system “worked” comment was not going away, did White House aides realize their approach was not working and that they needed to shift course.

Listen, it’s not all that complicated. The Obami don’t believe in their heart of hearts that we are on a war footing. The president wouldn’t label Fort Hood, where thirteen died, as an act of jihadist terror. His administration has systematically worked to denigrate the sense of urgency that the Bush administration displayed and to propound policies that treat these instances as discrete, ho-hum, and unexceptional. The Bush administration was scorned for reacting with a sense of alarm or out of fear following a terrorist attack — one which killed 3,000. Not the Obami. They told us they’re above all that and have an entirely new approach.

Arrest him, book him, Mirandize him, call the FBI — what’s the big deal? It is not a mystery at all as to why Obama behaved as he did. This is his anti-terror policy on full display. What we now see (and what the “shocked, shocked to see there is cluelessness” crowd is reacting to) is what that bizarre stance toward the war on terror looks like up close and in real time when played out in the context of actual events. Think it’s odd for the president to call Farouk Abdulmutallab a “suspect”? Think it’s weird that the terrorist isn’t being interrogated but has lawyered up? Well, that’s the Obama anti-terror policy. It isn’t supposed to be a big deal when these events occur. For if it were, we wouldn’t be treating the terrorists like criminal suspects ...

As always, more at Memeorandum.

The 'Glutes of Steel' Award

I missed yesterday's award entry from Doug Ross, "The 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards." And I had to laugh at this: "The 'Glutes of Steel' Award for Mocking Andrew Sullivan goes to: IowaHawk."

I was thinking earlier that Sullivan's buffoonery's now been overshadowed by Charles Johnson's. But Sully still comes in for a pretty good slam here and there, for example, from Glenn Reynolds yesterday (responding to a Daily Dish post attacking Instapundit without linking):

The more you argue that way — and the more you make it all about your self-satisfied sense of moral superiority — the less persuasive you are. Which, by now, has made you pretty damned unpersuasive indeed.

Glenns' responding to Sullivan's hysterical entry, "How Cheney Made America A Torture Nation." And clicking one of Instapundit's links to previous interations, we find this:

HMM, AGAIN: I’m not sure what Andrew Sullivan means by this post, in which he incompletely quotes my post here.

Perhaps he’d care to address the (omitted) quote from the Times debate about Nancy Pelosi and other leading Democrats endorsing waterboarding? Well, all kinds of people were endorsing torture back then and have later changed their tune, though Barack Obama was still sounding iffy last Fall. I, on the other hand, have always opposed torture — even when it got me compared to Mike Dukakis, — and even back in the fall of 2001. But, as I said a number of times, I think the subject has been turned into a partisan weapon — ignoring the pro-torture stands of many Democrats (and see this, too) — and that’s made me suspicious of the motives of those pushing it. In Andrew’s case, it may cause some people to forget how vigorously he supported the Iraq War, and George W. Bush, for a while, until his interests turned to gay marriage, and going after Republicans, but not so much Democrats, on this issue. Some people still remember.

Check the links there as well ...

GLUTES BACKGROUND: Richard Goldstein," The Real Andrew Sullivan Scandal: His Private Life Is None of Our Business. His Public Life Certainly Is," and Richard Kim, "Andrew Sullivan, Overexposed."

RELATED: Christopher Badeaux, "Through the Looking Glass With Andrew Sullivan."

'These are the same jerk-offs who I used to FAIL when I was teaching them in grad school!'

Nice Deb noted this at AOSHQ in September: "Not all "downfall" videos are created equal, and I've seen some pretty weak ones; this one, however made me lol ..."

She's talking about the "Frogger Gate" Downfall spoof. It is excellent, although I just found another, a bottom, at Duck of Minerva, on the scientific peer review process. Since Charles Johnson's so big on science (except when the facts end up being inconvenient truths), I thought the two might make a good dyad for comparative analysis (this one's a little more inside baseball, and thus especially good if you're an academic):

RELATED: IOWNTHEWORLD, "Johnson Can Only See Color."

Glenn Greenwald's Absolute Tyranny

I've got a new anonymous commenter, "Suzie Q," who left a response to my entry this morning, "Obama Connects al Qaeda to Jet Plot, But Fails to Connect Global Jihad." Ms. Susie Q asks:

So, how many liberties are conservatives willing to surrender to big government?? Because the conservative position is not to surrender liberties to big government. However, mention "al Qaeda" - and conservatives do a flip flop. That's why the whole thing is such a flop in the first place to a real conservative ....

Actually, no, Susie Q. These "real" conservatives you mention are folks like Daniel Larison who purport to be conservatives while allying with the left in destroying the nation. Nope, there's really little difference between these "true" conservatives (with burning hatred of neocons) and hard left extremists. For example, Glenn Greenwald, a regular writer at the misnamed American Conservative, addresses this same point today, by coincidence, regarding how much liberty conservatives are willing to give up for security. Greenwald excoriates the right's "pathology of fear" as his post, "The Degrading Effects of Terrorism Fears." And while Greenwald is often credited by those on the right for a modicum of consistency (since he's now attacking the Obama administration), I give Greenwald nothing but scorn. A blowhard and windbag, even his legal "expertise" can't save him from this disastrous America-bashing screed:

This is what inevitably happens to a citizenry that is fed a steady diet of fear and terror for years. It regresses into pure childhood. The 5-year-old laying awake in bed, frightened by monsters in the closet, who then crawls into his parents' bed to feel Protected and Safe, is the same as a citizenry planted in front of the television, petrified by endless imagery of scary Muslim monsters, who then collectively crawl to Government and demand that they take more power and control in order to keep them Protected and Safe. A citizenry drowning in fear and fixated on Safety to the exclusion of other competing values can only be degraded and depraved. John Adams, in his 1776 Thoughts on Government, put it this way:

Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.

As Adams noted, political leaders possess an inherent interest in maximizing fear levels, as that is what maximizes their power ....

What makes all of this most ironic is that the American Founding was predicated on exactly the opposite mindset. The Constitution is grounded in the premise that there are other values and priorities more important than mere Safety. Even though they knew that doing so would help murderers and other dangerous and vile criminals evade capture, the Framers banned the Government from searching homes without probable cause, prohibited compelled self-incrimination, double jeopardy and convictions based on hearsay, and outlawed cruel and unusual punishment. That's because certain values -- privacy, due process, limiting the potential for abuse of government power -- were more important than mere survival and safety. A central calculation of the Constitution was that we insist upon privacy, liberty and restraints on government power even when doing so means we live with less safety and a heightened risk of danger and death. And, of course, the Revolutionary War against the then-greatest empire on earth was waged by people who risked their lives and their fortunes in pursuit of liberty, precisely because there are other values that outweigh mere survival and safety.

Now, as fancy as that sounds, it's pure leftist drivel -- which is why both radicals and "paleoconservatives" eat it up. Even a cursory understanding of the nation's founding rebuts this simplistic -- indeed, devious -- proposition that liberty ALWAYS supercedes security. No doubt one could search around and find quotes from the founding generation to back one's arguments, but few sources would be more authoritative than Alexander Hamilton, author of some of the most important essays of the Federalist Papers. Here's Hamilton outlining the powers of the executive as facilitating the presevation not just of liberty, but ultimately of security and national survival. From Federalist #71:

THERE is an idea, which is not without its advocates, that a vigorous Executive is inconsistent with the genius of republican government. The enlightened well-wishers to this species of government must at least hope that the supposition is destitute of foundation; since they can never admit its truth, without at the same time admitting the condemnation of their own principles. Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy ....

There are preconditions to both security and liberty, and thus Glenn Greenwald's absolutism is both wrong and immoral -- and certainly not conservative. (In fact, Greenwald and his allies are not unlike the extremists of France in 1792 who took absolute liberté to its ultimate solution of the gallows.) Not only do strong national instutions, in the case of a vigorous executive, serve the interests of basic survival, but they are even more fundamental to the classical political philosophy of constitutional governement. As John Locke understood, whose writing formed a leading theoretical foundation for our constitutional regime, the absence of order in the state of nature formed the chief threat to the rights and liberties of men. To create a state (a government with sovereign legal authority over its the people) was to enter into a contract for the preservation of society, and hence the acquistion of security. Locke even modifies the more aggressive social contract theories of folks like Thomas Hobbes. Without a "common power" in centralized government, no person's security can be safeguarded from both external and internal threats, and thus liberty would be purely extinguished as an artifact of the negation of freedom in the left's "progressive" tyranny.

The Vise Tightens Around Charles Johnson!

The vise grip of the conservative blogosphere is tightening around Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs. Things are practically to the point of DEFCON alert. Always the control freak, C.J. has long banned commenters for disagreeing with him, and now he's also banning people for simply correcting him -- on other blogs. And that's not to mention C.J.'s escalation to legal threats against folks who're simply rebutting him around the 'sphere.

Another Black Conservative has some information on the "racist" Obama-Palin shoeshine controversy from the last couple of days. There's a link there to Patterico's post, where we find that he's been locked out at LGF for pointing out to Charles that the women who e-mailed the politically-incorrect photoshop is a registered Democrat. For someone so "scientific" real facts must have caused nasty bouts of cognitive dissonance and psychological displacement:

AOSHQ has the links as well, "Charles Johnson Pushes 'I Win' Button On Patterico."

Plus, Johnson's blathering about legal threats against Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit. Here's the screencap, available at Jim's post, "A New Low… Charles Johnson Now Supporting Child Porn in Classrooms & Fisting Kits at School Functions":

Sick. Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs reached a new low yesterday.Johnson attacked this blog for reporting again on Barack Obama’s safe schools czar. According to Charles, if you point out anything about Barack Obama’s “Safe” Schools Czar Kevin Jennings’ sordid record of promoting explicit, outrageously age-inappropriate sexual filth in the classroom you are a “homophobe.” He must have started reading the Soros-linked Media Matters since he flipped ....

Yesterday, I reported here that a Bulgarian website had enough courage to report on the Jenning’s scandal, one of the most underreported stories of 2009. This infuriated Charles Johnson who labeled the Bulgarian website a conspiracy website for its previous reporting. Like many leftists Charles believes that by labeling websites (even when the facts don’t back him up) you neuter their arguments. Of course, this is not true. Leftists like Charles believe if you can’t win an argument then smear the source instead.

Just the other day, Little Green Footballs published an attack against Andrew Breitbart's blog, "Breitbart's Big Government: Not Strong on Fact Checking."

But as you can see today, the hypocrisy is so devastating for Charles Johnson that perhaps he'd at least just back off, and perhaps add a little wonkish non-partisan policy analysis to his overnight shoreline photography posts.

See also, Verum Serum, "Charles Johnson: The Hypocrisy is Strong with This One."

UPDATE: Just found Charles Johnson's more formal, yet equally lame, threat of legal action against Gateway Pundit, "Jim Hoft, First Things, and Libelous Accusations."

Also, Charles Johnson links this post in the comments at LGF, here.

New Year's Fatalities Down‎ Across the Country

I just found this, from The Sun, "New Year's Heave: A SCANTILY-clad girl lies sprawled semi-conscious in the snow early yesterday as the UK celebrated New Year with yet another night of drunken shame":

That reminded me of the story from the news in California yesterday. From the Los Angeles Daily News, "CHP: DUI Arrests Up This Year, Deaths Down":

No one was killed on Los Angeles County roads this New Year's Eve, according to California Highway Patrol statistics. Last year, one person was killed during the same time period, between 6:01 p.m. Dec. 31 to 6 a.m. Jan. 1.
Statewide, deaths were down from 11 last year to 7 this year, according to CHP.

Although deaths were down, driving under the influence arrests were up across the state and in Los Angeles County. Statewide, CHP made 108 DUI arrests this year compared to 88 last year. In Los Angeles County, 527 DUI arrests were made this year, up from 438 last year.

But see also, the Gainesville Times, "DUI Enforcement Having an Effect; New Year’s Fatalities Down":

As on every New Year’s Eve, local law enforcement will be out in force tonight with roadblocks and patrols targeting impaired driving. And the familiar sight of flashing blue lights on the last night of the year appears to have had
some effect.

"It seems in the last few years that people who may have driven drunk have figured out that law enforcement is out in large numbers," said Sgt. Dean Allen, post commander for the Georgia State Patrol’s Gainesville post. "There’s a few who still get out there, but most of them know not to do it."

There are no figures immediately available for DUI arrests in Hall County on New Year’s Eve, but data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration suggest that nationally, alcohol-related traffic fatalities on New Year’s Eve are down.

Hat Tip: Newsreal.

Obama Connects al Qaeda to Jet Plot, But Fails to Connect Global Jihad

From the Wall Street Journal, "Obama Connects al Qaeda to Jet Plot":

President Barack Obama drew a direct link Saturday between an al Qaeda group and a foiled attempt to blow up a U.S.-bound airliner on Christmas Day.

In his Saturday morning radio address, Mr. Obama went further than he has in previous statements on the attack to connect the extremist group with the Dec. 25 attack. He pledged to work with officials in other nations to combat terrorism, including Yemen, where officials believe Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian accused of trying to destroy Northwest Flight 253, was schooled in terrorist techniques.

"We know that he traveled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies. It appears that he joined an affiliate of al Qaeda, and that this group -- Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula -- trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America," Mr. Obama said in his address, a copy of which was released by the White House. He delivered the radio address from Hawaii, where he is vacationing this week.

"This is not the first time this group has targeted us. In recent years, they have bombed Yemeni government facilities and Western hotels, restaurants and embassies -- including our embassy in 2008, killing one American. So, as president, I've made it a priority to strengthen our partnership with the Yemeni government-training and equipping their security forces, sharing intelligence and working with them to strike al Qaeda terrorists," he said.

Even before Christmas, the U.S. has been aiding Yemen battled militants and had already planned to substantially increase spending on counterterrorism operations there this year. Two missile strikes last month, before the botched attack, were aimed at leaders of the al Qaeda branch and a radical cleric U.S. officials believe is connected to the plot.

On Dec. 29, the president ordered a sweeping inquiry to determine how information in U.S. possession before the attack was not assembled into a full picture of the plot. Such a picture would have resulted in Mr. Abdulmutallab being detained for questioning before he boarded a jet with explosives concealed in his clothing, Mr. Obama has said.

The president is currently reading through hundreds of pages of reports submitted by heads of a half-dozen intelligence and other agencies in response to a Dec. 31 deadline he set for them to complete a preliminary review of their roles in the case.

On Tuesday Mr. Obama will convene agency chiefs in the White House Situation Room to discuss next steps in the investigation.

Meanwhile, Congress plans multiple hearings in what promises to be a politically-charged effort to determine who's to blame for intelligence failures.

The text of the president's address is here (via Memeorandum), but I've just listened to the video. I simply cannot believe this man. He claims he'll do "whatever it takes" to defeat our enemies, but then at 2:35 minutes he asserts that the war in Iraq " had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks." Then, at 4:22 minutes, he puffs, let us not succumb to "partisanship and division."

Yeah. Right. Mr. Take-a-Shot-at-My-Predecessor's-Foreign-Policy is urging folks to "renew that timeless American spirit of resolve and confidence and optimism."

What a f***ing joke.

No wonder Americans feel less safe under the Democrats and would be happy waterboarding our diabolical foes who want nothing less the a million 9/11s.

See also, Flopping Aces, "Obama Admin Denies Americans At War With Al Queda":

One should wonder not if Obama is defending the American people (he’s not), but rather…when Al Queda gets a good detonator and succeeds in killing Americans, what will Obama’s excuse be? He can’t blame Bush. He can’t say he was taking the threat seriously (he’s not). He can’t blame Republicans who barely have a minority in Congress. He can’t blame American imperialism as he’s practiced the opposite. So, if all those tried and true excuses and conspiracy theories of the past don’t sell….does that mean HE screwed up, and something (anything) that the Bush Admin did to prevent terror attacks was correct? That’s a question that-if answered in the affirmative, collapses the far left nutroots house of conspiracy theory lies.

Also, from Erick Erickson, "Could this actually be the greatest and potentially the deadliest of Obama’s screw ups so far?" (via Memeorandum).

Obama's 'Making Home Affordable' Program: False Hopes Among People Who Simply Cannot Afford Their Homes?

Well, I normally don't blog on this stuff, since it touches a personal nerve, but I've definitely got some insight, so what the heck?

From the New York Times, "U.S. Loan Effort Is Seen as Adding to Housing Woes" (via Memeorandum):

The Obama administration’s $75 billion program to protect homeowners from foreclosure has been widely pronounced a disappointment, and some economists and real estate experts now contend it has done more harm than good.

Since President Obama announced the program in February, it has lowered mortgage payments on a trial basis for hundreds of thousands of people but has largely failed to provide permanent relief. Critics increasingly argue that the program, Making Home Affordable, has raised false hopes among people who simply cannot afford their homes.

As a result, desperate homeowners have sent payments to banks in often-futile efforts to keep their homes, which some see as wasting dollars they could have saved in preparation for moving to cheaper rental residences. Some borrowers have seen their credit tarnished while falsely assuming that loan modifications involved no negative reports to credit agencies.

Some experts argue the program has impeded economic recovery by delaying a wrenching yet cleansing process through which borrowers give up unaffordable homes and banks fully reckon with their disastrous bets on real estate, enabling money to flow more freely through the financial system.

“The choice we appear to be making is trying to modify our way out of this, which has the effect of lengthening the crisis,” said Kevin Katari, managing member of Watershed Asset Management, a San Francisco-based hedge fund. “We have simply slowed the foreclosure pipeline, with people staying in houses they are ultimately not going to be able to afford anyway.”

Mr. Katari contends that banks have been using temporary loan modifications under the Obama plan as justification to avoid an honest accounting of the mortgage losses still on their books. Only after banks are forced to acknowledge losses and the real estate market absorbs a now pent-up surge of foreclosed properties will housing prices drop to levels at which enough Americans can afford to buy, he argues.

“Then the carpenters can go back to work,” Mr. Katari said. “The roofers can go back to work, and we start building housing again. If this drips out over the next few years, that whole sector of the economy isn’t going to recover.”

The Treasury Department publicly maintains that its program is on track. “The program is meeting its intended goal of providing immediate relief to homeowners across the country,” a department spokeswoman, Meg Reilly, wrote in an e-mail message.

But behind the scenes, Treasury officials appear to have concluded that growing numbers of delinquent borrowers simply lack enough income to afford their homes and must be eased out.

That sounds about right to me. But the administration's got an additional plan, "Foreclosure Alternatives Program." This is supposed to help banks eat their losses. But everybody hurts, so it doesn't help putting lipstick on this pig.

Anyway, while it's not something I've been blogging about, it's not as if I ignore this stuff. As Ace commenter Kreiz noted at the comments, these challenges "aren't unusual." Well, that's for sure, but then again. See these stories:

First, "My Personal Credit Crisis," from New York Times economic writer Edmund Andrews:

If there was anybody who should have avoided the mortgage catastrophe, it was I. As an economics reporter for The New York Times, I have been the paper’s chief eyes and ears on the Federal Reserve for the past six years. I watched Alan Greenspan and his successor, Ben S. Bernanke, at close range. I wrote several early-warning articles in 2004 about the spike in go-go mortgages. Before that, I had a hand in covering the Asian financial crisis of 1997, the Russia meltdown in 1998 and the dot-com collapse in 2000. I know a lot about the curveballs that the economy can throw at us.

But in 2004, I joined millions of otherwise-sane Americans in what we now know was a catastrophic binge on overpriced real estate and reckless mortgages. Nobody duped or hypnotized me. Like so many others — borrowers, lenders and the Wall Street dealmakers behind them — I just thought I could beat the odds. We all had our reasons. The brokers and dealmakers were scoring huge commissions. Ordinary homebuyers were stretching to get into first houses, or bigger houses, or better neighborhoods. Some were greedy, some were desperate and some were deceived.

And some haven't been totally forthcoming. Megan McArdle, at the Altlantic, an economics writer herself, has been hammering Andrews in a series of posts. Summarized here, "'Busted' Saga Continues ... Megan McArdle Responds To NYT's Ed Andrews."

Then there's this story, which puts a different light on well-meaning folks who got little to eager to cash in on the equity boom. See, "American Dream 2: Default, Then Rent":

Schoolteacher Shana Richey misses the playroom she decorated with Glamour Girl decals for her daughters. Fireman Jay Fernandez misses the custom putting green he installed in his backyard.

But ever since they quit paying their mortgages and walked away from their homes, they've discovered that giving up on the American dream has its benefits.

Both now live on the 3100 block of Club Rancho Drive in Palmdale, where a terrible housing market lets them rent luxurious homes -- one with a pool for the kids, the other with a golf-course view -- for a fraction of their former monthly payments.

"It's just a better life. It really is," says Ms. Richey. Before defaulting on her mortgage, she owed about $230,000 more than the home was worth.

People's increasing willingness to abandon their own piece of America illustrates a paradoxical change wrought by the housing bust: Even as it tarnishes the near-sacred image of home ownership, it might be clearing the way for an economic recovery.

Thanks to a rare confluence of factors -- mortgages that far exceed home values and bargain-basement rents -- a growing number of families are concluding that the new American dream home is a rental.

Some are leaving behind their homes and mortgages right away, while others are simply halting payments until the bank kicks them out. That's freeing up cash to use in other ways.

Ms. Richey's family of five used some of the money to buy season tickets to Disneyland, and plans to take a Carnival cruise to Mexico in March. Mr. Fernandez takes his girlfriend out to dinner more frequently. "We're saving lots of money," Ms. Richey says ....

But then check this out:

Ms. Richey, the teacher, arrived in Palmdale in 1999. In 2004, she and her husband, Timothy, bought a two-story home on Caspian Drive, near Avenue O-8, with a no-down-payment loan. They took pride in the amenities they installed: a powder room with granite countertops, a backyard pool and play area, and the purple-and-turquoise fantasy playroom upstairs for their three daughters.

But the value of the house plunged to less than $200,000 in 2009. Their $430,000 mortgage, with its $3,700 monthly payment, began to look more like an unwanted burden. By May, amid troubles getting tenants for two rental properties she also owned, Ms. Richey decided the time had come to cut a deal with America's Servicing Co., a unit of Wells Fargo & Co. servicing the mortgage on the house.

After three months of wrangling, she says she finally received a modification approval. The new monthly payment: about $3,300, far more than she had hoped. A Wells Fargo spokesman confirmed the bank offered Ms. Richey a modification under the Obama administration's Making Home Affordable program, and said, "The Richeys turned down the lowest payment we could offer."

Ms. Richey and her husband had already been working on Plan B -- exploring the neighborhood's "For Rent" signs.

On one trip, they drove by the house at 3152 Club Rancho Drive. It was bigger than their house on Caspian, had a pool with three waterfalls, and boasted a cascading staircase that Ms. Richey says she could picture her daughters descending on prom night. The rent was $2,195 a month.

The situation presented Ms. Richey with a quandary now facing more than 10 million U.S. homeowners who owe more on their mortgages than their houses are worth.

On one hand, walking away from her home would be easy. California is one of 10 states that largely prevent mortgage lenders from going after the other assets of borrowers who default. But she also had to consider the negatives. Her credit could be tarnished for years and, perhaps most importantly, she feared her friends and neighbors might ostracize her.

"It was scary," she says, noting that people tended to keep such decisions to themselves for fear of being stigmatized. "It's still very hush-hush."

Tom Sobelman, whose family of four lives across the street from Ms. Richey, at 3127 Club Rancho Drive, sees mortgages as a moral as well as financial obligation. He's still paying the mortgage on an investment property he owns nearby, despite the fact that the rent is about $1,000 a month short of covering his costs.

I think it's a moral issue too, which is why I don't like talking about my homeownership situation. I don't think taxpayers should be on the hook for decisions made by individuals. But not everyone thinks so. See the New York Times, "Homeowners Walking Away," Also, "The Art of Strategic Mortgage Defaults: The Coming Wave of Foreclosures in California. 588,000 People Nationwide Stop Paying Their Mortgage Even Though they had Funds to Pay," and "Go Ahead, Walk Away: There is Nothing Immoral About Ditching Your Mortgage."

I guess that's supposed to ease the pain for folks.

There you go, in any case. Stayed tuned ...

RELATED: From the Los Angeles Times, "Few Troubled Mortgages Being Modified Permanently." And at Flopping Aces, "2010: A Obama/Bernanke/Geithner Housing Bubble on the Taxpayers' Dime."

American Power in 2010

I've been putting it off, but I need to post my annual New Year's Day report. Last year's is here, "American Power in 2009."

I'm feeling better this year, less economic anxiety. That's probably odd, since, things financially are going to come to a head in my home this year. I'm up for refinance, but a home that sold across the street, virtually the exact same model (brand new development in 2005), sold for more than $100,000 dollars less than the market price at time of purchase. It's a lousy market, and unless folks are in for the long haul (stable, fixed-rate mortgages), people are losing money, selling short, or walking away. My wife and I have a lousy loan. We put down $35,000 on our house when we bought it (for close to $600,000). We put at least another $15,000 into it for furnishings, window coverings, new furniture, etc. After a year, we had over $150,000 in "equity" at going market rates. But then the crash came. Our loan is adjustable, and when the mortgage resets it'll be unaffordable at our current income levels. Like many folks, our fortunes were riding on market trends, and since both my wife and I are gainfully employed at good income, we've been less worried than many. Still, I'm not looking forward to the tough decisions. I'll be talking to the lender. Whatever happens with the house, everything will be market based. I oppose mortgage bailouts, and if my lender plays hardball, well, I signed on the line and I'll live with the outcome and learn from it -- starting over somewhere else if necessary.

That's all I feel like sharing about things on the financial side. It could be a rough year. The main thing for me, if we have to move, is to keep my kids enrolled in this school district. Both boys are doing well. My oldest will be 14 this month, and he's a headstrong teenager showing his independence. My youngest is 8 and doing really well in school after a couple of slower years dealing with reading impediments. We've got some special programs through his campus, and the principal, teachers, and support staff have been phenomenal. Irvine public schools are wonderful that way, so maintaining stability on that front will be a priority (my parents divorced when I was in 9th grade, and I basically missed my freshman year of high school from the emotional disruption and relocations ... I don't want my sons to go through it like I did).

The other big thing for me this year will be physical fitness (hence, the "Rocky" trailer above ... watched the movie again today, as part of Encore's "Rocky" marathon ... I should write another post on that ... maybe tomorrow). I've always been healthy and fit, although I've gained weight over the last two years and I need to lose about 20 pounds. My doctor even said so, for the first time in my life. So, I'll be getting out more. I've no excuses. I like the outdoors, and I was a skateboarder in my teens, and a bodybuilder and a cyclist in my twenties and thirties. A runner too, but I don't know if my knees are going to hold out. Hiking's cool (what've I've done in my forties), and that's probably the first thing I'll be getting back into. We also have a personal stepclimber in the downstairs office (Stairmaster 4000PT, popular at membership gyms in the 1990s), although I like to get out, so we'll see how much I use it. The main constraint will be setting aside time outside of work and caring for my boys. With the wife working full-time, exercise has to be scheduled in just like everything else. I will be writing and blogging about this, with photos of hikes - perhaps as early as next week, when my kids start back to school (I'll have another week off before my semester begins).

Other than that, as I noted in my 1 million hits milestone entry, blogging will continue. Although I'm not sure on the pace. I'm thinking about writing a book. Not sure how I'll approach it, but it's going to deal with my ideological transformation over the last 6 years, and perhaps a lot about blogging and politics. We'll see, but it's the next step in my personal development, and if I can get that done in a year or two, my blogging creds will be strengthened. Perhaps I'll even make more money at this stuff some day.

Okay, that's good for now. Thanks to all of my regular readers, many of whom I don't communicate with. Feel free to comment here, or try to comment at upcoming threads.

Northwest Terror Attempt Restores Security to Center of American Politics

At Big Government, Dana Loesch reports on "The Most Underreported Stories of 2009." It's a phenomenal essay, and breathtaking in peeling back the journalistic malpractice in the country today. But while Dana discusses Fort Hood and the home-grown Islamist threat, it's clear that the administration's gotten a free ride on its disastrous foreign policy altogether. And now that Americans have come literally within threads of a catastrophic bombing, it will simply do no good to let the administration skate free on national security any longer.

A suicide bombing reportedly killed eight Americans on a CIA base in Afghanistan, making it the worst single loss of life for the CIA since 1983.. As David Martin reports, the Taliban is claiming responsibility.

**********

Perhaps this piece at the Wall Street Journal might help us restore some perspective. See, "GOP Seizes on Security as Issue":

Political furor over the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253 has thrust national security back to the center of American politics, with Republicans and the White House scrambling to blame each other for intelligence lapses and present themselves to voters as tougher on terrorism.

Strategists in both parties believe that terrorism and, more broadly, foreign policy could emerge in the November midterm elections and in President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign as key issues for voters who have been focused primarily on the economy.

GOP opinion leaders such as former Vice President Dick Cheney have seized on the attack to question President Barack Obama's grasp of foreign affairs. Republican Party officials have sent fund-raising appeals that take aim at Mr. Obama's response to the episode.

Republican strategists said in interviews that they saw an opportunity to regain the traditional advantages on security issues that failed them in the past two national campaigns, as the economic downturn and public opposition to President George W. Bush's policies in Iraq took primacy in voters' minds.

The White House and its allies, meanwhile, have responded by mounting a campaign to assert Mr. Obama's bona fides as a strong commander in chief while blaming Bush policies in Iraq for emboldening al Qaeda to plan attacks such as the one Christmas Day in the skies over Detroit.

Their efforts include using a White House Web site posting personally rebuking Mr. Cheney for "seven years of bellicose rhetoric" and arguing that al Qaeda during Mr. Bush's tenure "regenerated" to establish "new safe havens" in Yemen and Somalia. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man accused in the botched effort to down Northwest Flight 253, allegedly trained in Yemen.

Good luck with that. Republicans can just point to Democratic hypocrisy on any of the security threats we've faced since at least the Iraq war, and more recently leftist defeatism on Afghanistan.

Dana Loesch Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds.

Video Hat Tip: AubreyJ.org.

RELATED: "C.I.A. Takes On Bigger and Riskier Role on Front Lines," via Memeorandum.

Suicide Bomber Kills Scores in Pakistan!

The death toll varies across news reports, but scores have been killed in a suicide bombing at a Pakistan volleyball match. The Telegraph UK indicates 88 dead:

At least 88 people were killed on Friday when a suicide car bomber blew up himself and his vehicle as people gathered to watch a volleyball game in north-west Pakistan.

Police said dozens more were injured in the attack in the village of Shah Hasan Khan, in Bannu district.

“The villagers were watching the match between the two village teams when the bomber drove his double-cabin pick-up vehicle into them and blew it up,” said Habibullah Khan, the local chief of police.

Police said the attack was possibly retaliation against residents who had set up a militia to expel Taliban fighters from the area. The village is near South Waziristan, where the army last month completed a military offensive against extremists sheltering in the lawless territory.

Friday’s bombing took place after Pakistan’s security forces said they had foiled a suicide bomb plot against the country’s sensitive Wagah border crossing with India.

The plot, if carried out, would have sabotaged the first steps to improve relations between the two countries after the 2008 terrorist attacks on Mumbai. It was uncovered as Pakistani intelligence agents arrested 10 militants including the Taliban’s leader in Punjab, known as Khalilullah, and a 17-year-old boy who was being groomed to carry the bomb.

And at the New York Times:

A suicide bomber rammed a pickup truck loaded with explosives into a playground crowded with families and children watching a volleyball game in northwest Pakistan Friday.

Police and local officials said as many as 60 people had been killed, with scores wounded, making the New Year’s Day attack one of the deadliest of more than 20 suicide bombings carried out by militants since October.

The attack underscored the Taliban’s determination to prevent citizens from forming militias to keep the insurgents at bay as military operations disrupt their strongholds in the nearby tribal belt.

Local authorities said they had little doubt that the village, Shah Hassan Khel, was chosen because residents were forming a pro-government militia. In recent weeks, the militants had been threatening death to anyone who joined.

But as the bomber prepared to strike on Friday, he did not choose the most obvious target: A meeting underway of local leaders of the new militia.

Instead, he drove his double-cabin pickup truck into the middle of a nearby playground where teams were playing volleyball and detonated explosives so powerful that they collapsed homes surrounding the field.

It's not as if folks don't realize Pakistan's at the boiling point. For a while there, in the last couple of months, I was reporting a new attack in Pakistan every day. And this is the Taliban, so it's not going to be isolated. The Waziristan region of Af-Pak will continue to be the crosshairs of Islamist radicalism. Indeed, South Asia, encompassing Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India is now replicating the foreign policy challenges of Fallujah and Sunni Triangle from roughly 2004 through 2006. Just like Iraq in 2003, now the United Nations is pulling out of Pakistan as increasing danger threatens its mission there. Where once analysts warned of a U.S. defeat in Iraq under the Bush administration, now it's the Demcrats and Obama who'll take blame for deterioriation of the region, the descent and possible collapse of Pakistan, and a perhaps an ignominious American withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Healthcare can wait. This administration is facing its highest stakes in foreign policy. We've started to move toward more efficacious counterinsurgency under the McChrystal plan, but President Obama's dithering and delay clearly has emboldened America's enemies in the theater. Dick Cheny is right.

Noteworthy is how the Taliban, by seeking to deploy teenage bombers, is now mimicking the most diabolical terrorism of al Qaeda in Iraq at the height of the insurgency. And as we saw yesterday, the bomber in the Afghan blast that killed 8 Americans had camouflaged the bomb under an Afghan army uniform.

See also, CNN's report, "Terror Attack Kills 75 at Pakistan Volleyball Match."

Best Tea Party Signs of 2009!

Now that's a "top-ten" list I could get my grubby little right-wing terrorist fingers around!

Actually, I've saw so many phenomenal signs last year I probably couldn't come up with a top-ten list. But Michelle has a post from yesterday that's inspiring, "Best of 2009: Tea Party sign of the times." She's got a sign there that says, "Reduce Your Government Footprint."

But I found this one today, "How's This For Community Organizing" (courtesy of "Washington DC, You Work For Us"):

And come to think of it, each new tea party brings out a new set of signs, addressing a new set of angles on the issues -- it's just a delight to behold (and scares the bejesus out of the Dems).

RELATED: From Politico, "GOP Banks on Repeal Push for 2010," via Memeorandum.

Robby Krieger and Ray Manzarek Live in Marina del Rey

I noticed this the other day, but didn't get a chance to post on it until now (partly for forgetting, partly for procrastination). From Wednesday's Los Angeles Times "Calendar" section:

Robby Krieger and Ray Manzarek - Former guitarist for the Doors Robby Krieger's fret-burning skills will be on display once again at the Waterfront, where he'll be joined by Doors keyboardist Ray Manzarek plus an all-star band for an evening of Doors classics and more. Waterfront Concert Theater, 4211 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey. 9 p.m. $10. (310) 448-8900. http://www.thewfr.com/.

Can you believe that? If you're a big Doors fan, Wednesday night's gig would have been pretty heavenly. I love their music, of course. But I was still very young when Jim Morrison's gang hit the big time. I have an interesting anecdote, however: Mr. Courson, my principal at Cerro Villa Junior High in the 1970s, is father to the late Pamela Courson, Jim Morrison's partner at the high-tide of the Doors' fame. Pam Courson died of a drug overdose a year or so after Morrison died. She's buried at Fairhaven Memorial Park, in Santa Ana, which is where I plan to be buried myself (just a few miles from where I went high school, in Orange, California). Check her Wikipedia information for more details. This is strangely a common memory for me when listening to the Doors' music.

Which reminds me, Los Angeles is the best place in the world for music and concert-goers. Much of the greatest music is created here, and bands come from around the world to play in Southern California. And still today, many of the great musicians from earlier eras continue to play live around town. Plus, "Touch Me" is a sentimental favorite for both girlfriend reasons and the saxophone. (Robby Kreiger's got a black eye at the clip, apparently from getting popped by Morrison in a fight. He refused to wear makeup for his performances, and this one's caught live)

I haven't forgotten about Kreiz's Smashing Pumpkins request, either, if any of my readers are keeping tabs!

(Added Aside: I found Kristina's blog while looking up the Krieger listing. She apparently just saw X in concert a couple of weeks ago, and was astounded how she was able to see Exene, John Doe and gang 30 years after their big heyday. Another example of the power and wonder of music, and Kristina's a leftist!)

Jihad for Obama

From Charles Krauthammer, "A Terrorist War Obama Has Denied" (via Memeorandum):

Janet Napolitano -- former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security -- will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: "The system worked." The attacker's concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son's jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.

Heck of a job, Brownie.

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to play down and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism "man-caused disasters." Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York -- a trifecta of political correctness and image management.

And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term "war on terror." It's over -- that is, if it ever existed.

Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term "asymmetric warfare."

RTWT at the link.

Image Credit: Voting Female Speaks!

Added: The Sundries Shack, "Who Is the President’s Enemy? Hint, It’s Not The Guys Trying to Blow Stuff Up."

Jane Hamsher Nude?

Robert Stacy McCain, Google-bomber extraordinaire, has gotta get a kick out of this one. As indicated by my Sitemeter the other day, apparently folks have been searching for "Jane Hamsher Nude." Interestingly, my blog does well in the search results:

Hate to disappoint my more salacious readers, but nothing fancy here, as the seach simply reveals my December 22 entry, "Jane Hamsher, Netroots' Most Despised Hypocrite, Called Out Again!" That's when "Hammering" Hamsher was herself hammered for appearing on Fox News.

But thinking about it, is Jane attractive? Well, actually, I'd rather be searching for Penélope Cruz nude, but if some dudes get a chubby fantasizing about hammering Hamsher, more power to 'em.

In any case, Jane continues to make the rounds as a pushy progressive pundit out to kill ObamaCare. See, "Happy New Year":

I spent my morning on MSNBC talking about right/left opposition to the mandate. What about you? ...

I guess Mark Thompson can dig it.

More on ObamaCare, by that way, at "Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients." (Via Memeorandum.)

**********

UPDATE: I'm glad I took the screenshot! Now this post leads the Google seach for "Jane Hamsher Nude"!

Change Coming in 2010 Elections

I missed this graphic last night, at my post, "Republicans Poised for Strong Comeback in 2010." The magic numbers are 40 seats in the House and 11 in the Senate. The GOP's going to need a 1994-like showing:

And this gives me a chance to post the comment there, from Reaganite Republican:

The Dems face annihilation in 2010, IMHO - and won't be trusted with the purse strings again for decades, if ever.

ObamaCare is still far from a done-deal, and regardless the political damage is done.

Cap-n-tax? With the evidence looking weak lately, Obama’s own #s tanking … and 11% unemployment? Small wonder Dems are asking him to 86 the bill already.

The only major legislation enacted then would be the wholly-ineffective Porkulus. Obama has NO political cover on that one, due to the paucity of GOP collaborators- he owns it. All it will ever stimulate is inflation… in the months leading right-up to midterms.

The Democrats look to face a bloodbath next fall, with some like Dick Morris predicting a 100+ seat loss on the Hill.

By 2012, most people will wince at the very mention of the name “Obama” - and the GOP could take 40 states running Gilbert Gottfried -

Party’s over kiddies- time to put the grown-ups back in charge ...

See also Reaganite's cartoon roundup from yesterday, "Laughing-Off 2009... a Weird One by ANY Measure."

The New 'Other McCain'

Robert Stacy McCain's new Wordpress blog is now live: "The Other McCain." Robert is traveling to Southern California next Tuesday, January 5th, for the Bowl Championship (the Texas vs. Alabama game is January 7th). I should be free on Wednesday to meet him somewhere up in the Pasadena area for some lunch and perhaps some old-fashioned carousing. I'll take my camera, and will report on developments shortly thereafter.

There's been no break in the quality of posting at The Other McCain, by the way. See Robert's piece on the Sarah Palin non-controversy this morning, "State Employee Faces Discipline for Looking at Porn Insulting Obama at Work."

Paula McClain and the 'Duke 88'

I admit that I didn't follow the Duke rape case all that closely back in the day. I was just getting started as a blogger, feeling my way around the 'sphere, and being careful as far as my own reputation and relationships go. (I used to read Betsy's Page a lot at the time - a great blogger who had the story down cold.) I don't worry about that as much now, the rep thing, although I'm sure being a partisan blogger steps on a few toes here and there.

Having said that, I'd rather be honest and forthright than shameful. And, sorry to have to say it, but it looks like that's what happened with Paula McClain, who is Professor of Political Science Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, and Co-Director of the Center for the Study of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender at Duke. In 1999, for my upper division course in Black Politics, I assigned chapters from McClain's book, Can We All Get Along?" Racial and Ethnic Minorities in American Politics.

Anyway, I mention all of this after reading John Hinderaker's essay from last night, "What ever happened to the "Duke 88?" (Via Memeorandum.) It turns out that none of the 88 Duke University faculty have apologized for their roles in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case. And as Hinderaker notes, regarding the Duke 88's unfounded ad campaign:

The ad appeared almost four years ago. Stuart Taylor takes a look at what has happened since to some of the 88 thoroughly wrongheaded professors who signed it.

First, according to Taylor, no member of the "Duke 88" has publicly apologized. Many have expressed pride in their rush to judgment.

Second, sigining the ad seems to have been a pretty good career move. In 2007, one member of the group -- Paula McClain -- became head of Duke's Academic Council, the highest elected position for a faculty member ....

The Stuart Taylor piece is here, "The Rot At Duke -- And Beyond: Much of academia appears to have a disregard of due process and a bias against white males." It notes there:

Among the most prominent signers of both the ad and the letter were Karla Holloway, an English professor, and Paula McClain, a political science professor. They also slimed the lacrosse players in opaquely worded, academic-jargon-filled individual statements full of innuendo.

The ad is here, "What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like?" The letter is here, "An Open Letter to the Duke Community."

In May last year, my professional association, the American Political Science Association, released this press release, "APSA Bunche Institute Director McClain Receives NSF Grant -- Dr. Paula D. McClain, Director of the APSA Ralph Bunche Summer Institute, Receives NSF Grant." And Duke's Provost, Professor Peter Lange, is quoted there:

Duke University is pleased and honored to be home to the APSA Ralph Bunche Summer Institute. We are also pleased to have faculty leaders such as Paula McClain and her colleagues, who are willing to put in the enormous time and energy to bring the Institute here and to lead in the teaching and mentoring of its participants. Diversity and inclusion are central to building a strong, vibrant academic community and to the development of scholars who can teach and do research that enhance the disciplines and professions. Duke is enriched by our contribution to this effort in Political Science.

Dr. Lange is also a Professor of Political Science at Duke. He gave a research colloquium at UCSB in the 1990s, when I was completing my graduate training there.

To his credit, at least initially, Dr. Lange refused to join the Duke lynchmob in 2006. As Provost he responded to English Professor Houston Baker (who is cited by Hinderaker as a most "execrable" members of the Duke 88, now on the faculty at Vanderbilt University). Lange writes there, for example:

I cannot tell you how disappointed, saddened and appalled I was to receive this letter from you. A form of prejudice - one felt so often by minorities whether they be African American, Jewish or other - is the act of prejudgment: to presume that one knows something "must" have been done by or done to someone because of his or her race, religion or other characteristic. In the United States our sad racial history is laced with such incidents, only fully brought to light in the recent past and undoubtedly there are uncounted numbers of such incidents not yet, or ever to be, known.

I don't know enough of Dr. Lange's later leadership at the university to say one way or the other, but considering how things developed (as told in the Taylor essay), it certainly appears not all that good.

There's more at Taylor's piece, and I've said enough. Folks can see why, though, when it comes to academics and race, I'm often embarrassed as a professional. The standards of excellence in my field, at least on this score, have sunk low.

New Year's Eve in Times Square 2010

Well, I watched the ball drop in Times Square, and a little bit of Dick Clark, God bless him. Now I'm hitting the sack. Happy New Year everyone. Hundreds of thousands turned out in downtown Manhattan, so if you're up for some reading pleasure at this time of morning, see, "Celebrations in Times Square Despite Troubled Times." I have lots of blogging planned for today (after I wake up!), and throughout 2010. I'm especially excited about politics. I think we're at the beginning of a two-year election cycle that will bring the GOP back to the White House. The Republicans will be given a mandate to restore genuine conservatism in the United States. More on that later. For now, enjoy your January 1st, and build up your power for our coming battles against the left's forces of class struggle and destruction.

Republicans Poised for Strong Comeback in 2010

This is something I've been feeling in my bones for sometime, but especially after the November 2009 elections. From the Los Angeles Times, "GOP Poised for Comeback in Midterm Elections":

After losing the White House and nearly 70 congressional seats in the last two elections, Republicans are poised for a strong comeback in 2010, with significant gains likely in the House and a good chance of boosting their numbers in the Senate and statehouses across the country.

The results could hamper President Obama's legislative efforts as he prepares to seek reelection and reshape the political landscape for a decade beyond, as lawmakers redraw congressional and state political boundaries to reflect the next census.

All 435 House seats, 36 in the Senate and the governorships of 37 states will be on the ballot in November. Democrats are favored to retain the Massachusetts seat of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in a special election Jan. 19.

Some of the Democrats' most prominent figures, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, are in serious danger as they seek reelection. Both would probably lose if elections were held today.

"It all adds up to a pretty bad year for the party in power," said Jennifer Duffy, an analyst with the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. "How bad? I'm not sure we know yet."

However, for all Republicans stand to gain, the party still has problems. Polls show that many voters, though unhappy with Democrats, are even less enamored of the GOP.

Steve Pearce, a former three-term Republican congressman, criticizes both parties as he campaigns for his old House seat in New Mexico, saying the explosion in spending under President George W. Bush has only gotten worse under Obama. "Both parties tend to get there and forget who they were and begin to talk differently than they do here," Pearce recently told a gathering of the Chaves County Republican Women in Roswell.

One big question is whether the GOP can capitalize on the free-floating hostility embodied by the anti-incumbent "tea party" movement to seize back control of Congress, four years after Democrats won power. Republicans need to win 40 House seats and 11 in the Senate -- which, for now, seems unlikely.

I personally don't expect majority control to flip to the Republcans next year. That is, not in the House. Forty seats is a huge margin, and actually despite all the glum talk for the Democrats, I think it's going to be anti-incumbent more than anything. That's why what happens with the tea parties is so crucial. Democrats fear the protesters so much that they haven't gotten past demonizing them as "teabaggers." Republicans desperately want to coopt the tea party populism for their own ends, more electoral than policy. We have too many Republicans who diss the grassroots as fringe, for example, the RNC and folks like Newt Gingrich. But if it's one thing I've learned with all of my activism this year, tea party patriots, are in no mood to compromise on principles, and frankly, they'll mobilize in even greater numbers in the months leading up to the 2010 midterms.

Read the rest of the article, in any case.