Hypocrisy at its Shining Best

There are times when Charles Krauthammer is at best supercilious and at worst self-absorbed, but his May 1 article, 'Pelosi: Utterly Contemptible' is the Krauthammer at his best. It's a hard-hitting look at the hypocrisy and double-dealing in Congress (particularly within the Speaker's office) over the 'torture memos' and push to investigate those involved.

Did it work? The current evidence is fairly compelling. George Tenet said that the "enhanced interrogation" program alone yielded more information than everything gotten from "the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together."

Michael Hayden, CIA director after waterboarding had been discontinued, writes (with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey) that "as late as 2006 ... fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al-Qaeda came from those interrogations." Even Dennis Blair, Obama's director of national intelligence, concurs that these interrogations yielded "high value information." So much for the lazy, mindless assertion that torture never works. ...

... Today Pelosi protests "we were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." She imagines that this distinction between past and present, Clintonian in its parsing, is exonerating.

On the contrary. It is self-indicting. If you are told about torture that has already occurred, you might justify silence on the grounds that what's done is done and you are simply being used in a post-facto exercise to cover the CIA's rear end. The time to protest torture, if you really are as outraged as you now pretend to be, is when the CIA tells you what it is planning to do "in the future."

Krauthammer is dead on the money in this case. Rep. Pelosi is a perfect example of the CYA culture in Washington. The one where all principles are up for sale, even patriotism, and when the fact that they were sold cheap is exposed, blame someone else. I lean toward the argument, expressed in the opening paragraphs of the article, that there are unique exceptions that would permit torture for very specific goals. However, I can respect disagreement on this issue, and wouldn't condemn an opposing view. If one takes that opposing view however, it's important to ensure that one maintains it as a consistent principle. Pelosi sold out, pure and simple. She's been caught with her pants down, and now it's someone else's fault that she didn't understand future possibility versus present (apparently she skipped the lectures in school on verb tense). Krauthammer has the right of it here as well, holding Pelosi responsible for not doing everything she could to stop the CIA and the administration if she believed so strongly that these methods were absolutely and always wrong. Instead, she offered support and greater funding. She's not a liberal - she's simply a sellout.

A Gentler H1N1 Than First Feared

This is probably good news. Genetic sequencing is complete on the current H1N1 and:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the new virus is "a very unusual" four-way combination of genes from human, bird and pig viruses found in North America, Asia and Europe.

CDC flu chief Dr. Nancy Cox said the good news is "we do not see the markers for virulence that were seen in the 1918 virus." Nor does swine flu virus have the virulence traits found in the H5N1 strain of bird flu seen in recent years in Asia and other parts of the world, she said.

"However we know that there is a great deal that we do not understand about the virulence of the 1918 virus or other influenza viruses," that caused serious illnesses, she said. "So we are continuing to learn."

The relatively slow rate of spread this time around (as compared to the last three H1N1 pandemics for instance), and fairly low mortality, means that this time we may very well avoid the pandemic label. One possibility for this strain is that it will 'recirculate' for several years, much as SARS has. The one danger in that possibility is the availability for the virus to pick up new genetic codes, becoming a stronger more dangerous strain after one or two years of circulation. The really good news with such a scenario is that researchers have plenty of time to study for the virus, and assemble a powerful vaccine. The article concludes on an up-note, comparing virulence with this strain to seasonal flu and previous pandemics.

Another CDC official, Dr. Anne Schuchat, said preliminary studies suggest that in U.S. households with an infected person, about a quarter of other family members are getting sick as well. Generally, for seasonal flu, between 5 percent and 20 percent of those exposed to the virus get sick, depending on the setting.

In some pandemics, the rate has been as high as 35 percent, Cox said.

She noted the CDC has entered the gene information for the new virus into databases that are publicly available.

UPDATES: Warning of the Flu Outbreak May Have Come Last Year

UPDATE: Bioresearch Online is reporting that warning of the Replikins, Ltd. (a biotech/biopharm. company) provided a warning of the flu outbreak (correctly identifying index location and likely strain) a year ago, using genomics technology which tracks changes in the viral mutation and replication rate. From the report:
Replikins, Ltd. published a FluForecast® warning in April 7th, 2008, a year before the recent Mexico and California H1N1 cases. The company was able to state the likelihood of H1N1 outbreaks based on its patented Replikin Count™ genomics technology, which examines specific regions in virus genes which have been linked with past epidemics. The April 2008 announcement, attached below as published on the Web, stated that in H1N1 the company had then detected the highest concentrations of these specific regions ever seen, except for those from the 1918 pandemic which killed millions of people. Today, the company is actively pursuing licensing partnerships to apply its groundbreaking technology not only to early warning systems, but also to the development of synthetic vaccines to prevent or slow future epidemics. A synthetic H1N1 Replikins Vaccine is available for testing, and related products are described below and on the company's website.
The link to the original report is here. The original report makes clear that viral counts were rapidly rising at that time:
Replikins Ltd. has found that the Replikin Count(TM) of the H1N1 strain of influenza virus has recently increased to 7.6 (plus/minus 1.4), its highest level since the 1918 H1N1 pandemic (p value less than 0.001). A rising Replikin Count of a particular influenza strain, indicating rapid replication of the virus, is an early warning which has been followed consistently by an outbreak of the specific strain.
Organizations typically fight the last battle much more effectively than they predict those in the future. In this case, the WHO and CDC may have relied too heavily on traditional clinical reporting and identification, rather than newer reporting technology. If the Replikins report proves to be fully accurate, the major health monitoring organizations will need to change their monitoring standards.

Here it is - the all things swine flu links page.

Yesterday afternoon, the World Health Organization raised the pandemic flu alert to Phase 5, implying that a global pandemic is imminent. If a pandemic is declared, it would be right in line with the 19th-century's 40 year cycling for influenza pandemics (the last one was in 1968, and was also caused by a swine flu that made the jump to humans). Helpful links to follow the latest include the National Swine Flu Situation Page, the government's Pandemic Flu site (both of these have maps linked to confirmed cases only), the WHOs information page on flu, and the CDC's site. Interestingly, the CDC also has May listed as Asthma Awareness month - one hopes that people don't start confusing asthma attacks with flu victims.

On a somewhat lighter note, the PigFluMap, isn't the world's most accurate, but it's a lot more interesting to see the varied reporting numbers (suspected, possibles, etc.). A word of warning - it has a really annoying ad that pops up everytime you refresh the map, but it does seem to pull in every suspect case out there, along with state, regional, and country stats.

CNN had a fascinating story yesterday of a WWI soldier (the grandfather of one of their producers) who survived the 1918 'Spanish' flu pandemic twice while serving. It provides a fascinating historical look at a world at war during a pandemic that may have killed as many as 50 million globally. Numbers of deaths during pandemics have gone down significantly since that period, largely due to better treatment, public education, and response systems.

Of course, there are plenty of conspiracy theories and outright mythology circulating. On the left - it's all a big scheme to put money in the pocket of 'big pharma,' thus capitalizing on the misery of the oppressed. On the right, it's a crisis too good to waste - more big government coming your way!

Meanwhile, I'm headed for San Antonio (yes, near Mexico with one school already closed and confirmed cases in the city), but don't anticipate anything more exciting than a good conference.

Send Your Ideas for Limited Spending to the White House (no, it's not April Fool's Day)

The AP is reporting that President Obama wants to hear ideas for limiting government spending from federal workers:
"After all, Americans across the country know that the best ideas often come from workers, not just management," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address. "That's why we'll establish a process through which every government worker can submit their ideas for how their agency can save money and perform better. We'll put the suggestions that work into practice."

How about: stop putting out gigantic bills that will indebt the next three generations? Of course:
Obama said his administration would make $2 trillion in deficit reductions in the next decade, a pledge he has made repeatedly during his first three months in office. He also said he wants to re-evaluate priorities in the capital and urged Congress to pass legislation that would force lawmakers to pay for new policies and avoid large deficits. He also told agencies they could keep a part of the money they save.

If you're interested, send your comments to: http://www.whitehouse.gov

UPDATE - Porter Goss: No Cover from the Obama Administration

UPDATE 2: Porter Goss published a damning OpEd in the Washington Post this morning. In it he explicitly condemns members of Congress (no doubt, he was particularly referencing Pelosi) for convenient memories.
In the fall of 2002, while I was chairman of the House intelligence committee, senior members of Congress were briefed on the CIA's "High Value Terrorist Program," including the development of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and what those techniques were. This was not a one-time briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers. ... Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience. ... The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.

The Congressional leadership needs to 'man-up,' now, before their own words and deeds are released by name for the public to examine. Those in glass houses need to be careful of what they throw.

UPDATE 1: To further illustrate the confused message coming from the administration, read both the President's call on the CIA to change their wicked ways, and his assurance to the agency that its members have his full support.

ABCs Jake Tapper published an article yesterday in which he cited a number of current and former CIA officers who shared their concerns that the Obama Administration is now on a path that leaves them exposed and 'without cover.' A former lawyer for the agency, Mark Lowenthal was one of the sources:

"We ask these people to do extremely dangerous things, things they've been ordered to do by legal authorities, with the understanding that they will get top cover if something goes wrong," Lowenthal says. "They don't believe they have that cover anymore." Releasing the photographs "will make it much worse," he said.

Even though President Obama has announced that the Justice Department will not prosecute CIA officers who were operating within the four corners of what they'd been told was the law, Lowenthal says members of the CIA are worried. "They feel exposed already, and this is going to increase drumbeat for an investigation or a commission" to explore detainee treatment during the Bush years, he said. "It's going to make it much harder to resist, and they fear they're then going to be thrown over."

The officers have good reason to fear this, if history is any guide. The Washington Examiner related the story of Ted Olson, who provided legal advice to President Reagan. Olson became the subject of a long-running independent counsel investigation for providing legal advice that later became politically unpopular among members of Congress. The investigation took up years of his life, went nowhere in the long run, and damaged his reputation. There's a great danger that the current thirst for 'truth' turns to a thirst for vengeance. Persecuting those who did their jobs believing their actions to be legally correct and acceptable, and possibly endangering members of the military and intelligence communities who are currently deployed when further exposures are made, is irresponsible at best. Giving a pep talk to Langley won't reassure officers who have done a dangerous job for years, and expected to be covered by the White House, no matter who holds the presidency.

The way that the administration seems to be handling this issue has, at times, appeared almost schizophrenic. Stephen Hayes exposed some of the confusion in the recent edition of The Weekly Standard. The gravest concern raised in his article is not the apparent internal debate in the administration, and between various factions of the Democratic Party, but rather than selective leaking of the memos and possible investigations, will be only for political gain. That possibility should concern any citizen.

One Step Closer to Nationalization

This evening's Marketplace (NPR) spent a great deal of time on an interview between Kai Ryssdal and John Dimsdale. Their discussion raised my hackles almost immediately, mostly because they nailed the Obama Administration's moves to take control over large banks. It's probably a violation of copy right laws to copy the entire inteview (I strongly suggest you read and listen to it), but I'll comment on some key moments.

The interview started by referencing a New York Times article from this morning that explained that the government may convert its preferred shares in banks into common stock.
And not helping at all was a story in The New York Times today that the Treasury Department's thinking about changing the terms of the investment it made in the big Wall Street banks as part of the bailout package. Our Washington Bureau Chief John Dimsdale is here to explain what might be happening. And why.

According to the NYT article, the Obama Administration is touting this as a means of sparing Congress from putting more funds out:
President Obama’s top economic advisers have determined that they can shore up the nation’s banking system without having to ask Congress for more money any time soon, according to administration officials.

It's probably true that the Administration would have trouble getting Congress to agree to more TARP funds at this point (they're taking enough flack on TARP 1 & 2). But is the Administration being honest?
In a significant shift, White House and Treasury Department officials now say they can stretch what is left of the $700 billion financial bailout fund further than they had expected a few months ago, simply by converting the government’s existing loans to the nation’s 19 biggest banks into common stock.

Kai and John certainly don't seem to think so.
DIMSDALE: Right, common shares are voting shares. The government can easily become the biggest shareholder of some banks and decide who is going to be on the board. It'll influence other decisions, business decisions. Not to mention the potential conflicts of interest when the nation's lawmakers become big shareholders of a company. Buying common shares is much closer to nationalizing the banks.

That's right boys and girls, the Administration is pushing all the buttons to make conservatives hot under the collar, but depsite the nasty 'n' word being thrown around, it's not the worst thing that could come out of the Administration's strategy:
DIMSDALE: Well, there's no guaranteed return with common stocks. And there are no dividends. Taxpayers are not at the head of the line to be paid back. There is more of an upside potential if banks turn around, and that would be good for government revenue and the taxpayers, but that dilutes the returns for private, common-share investors. Which is why the banks that have the ability will try to, as soon as possible, get out from under the government investments. Jeff Davis thinks that in the near future some of the stronger banks, perhaps Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, BB&T Bank, will raise private capital, buy back the government investments, and that would be good for them, Davis says, but not for others.

So, under this strategy, the government buys the largest shareholder position, using our tax dollars, and we're less likely to get repaid. The banks obviously don't want this happening, so they're going to try to repay the TARP funds just as quickly as they can, but:
Ryssdal: The government is going to be left with wards of the state, or quasi zombies. And the J.P. Morgans and the BB&Ts are saying, in effect, we don't want to be part of that crowd.
Ryssdal: Yeah and of course the next big battle is whether or not the banks are even going to be allowed to repay back that TARP money, right?

Thanks, Kai! You made my drive home so much more acid-inducing than it already is!

Good Call - the US Withdraws from the UN's Conference on Racism

The United States has withdrawn from the UN's upcoming Conference on Racism, largely because (as stated in a Bloomberg report):

"The Geneva conference will review progress on the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, or DDPA. The UN says about 4,000 delegates will attend, including Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

The DDPA was and is a huge problem. It essentially declares Israel to be fully at fault in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and while skirting the line of Holocaust-denial, blames Israel for racist oppression of the Palestinians. The entire conference is an issue as well, since the most vocal member states all enact racist and sexist policies. Any confrontation of these policies is impossible through this body however, as the same members have managed to turn around any criticism, calling it racist offensive. It's a neat trick to accuse your enemies of what they would charge you with, but it doesn't make it more accurate. The article continues:

While the Geneva draft text is an improvement on the 2001 document rejected by the U.S., it still reaffirms “in toto” the DDPA statement, the State Department said on April 18.

“The DDPA singles out one particular conflict and prejudges key issues that can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians,” acting State Department spokesman Robert A. Wood said in a statement. “The United States also has concerns with relatively new additions to the text regarding ‘incitement’ that run counter to the U.S. commitment to unfettered free speech.

There has been a lot of worry and bother over whether or not the new Administration would cave to pressure, and participate in the conference, thus giving its members cover. It's good to know that the US is still going to draw a firm line - at least for now.

Cognitive Dissonance?

First to the cognitive dissonance half of this post: at his address on the economy at Georgetown University yesterday, President Obama said, "We must build our house upon a rock ...We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity — a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest; where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad. ... And most of all, I want every American to know that each action we take and each policy we pursue is driven by a larger vision of America’s future — a future where sustained economic growth creates good jobs and rising incomes; a future where prosperity is fueled not by excessive debt, reckless speculation and fleeing profit but is instead built by skilled, productive workers; by sound investments that will spread opportunity at home and allow this nation to lead the world in the technologies, innovations and discoveries that will shape the 21st century. That is the America I see. That is the future I know we can have. ..." The President also said, "All of these actions — the Recovery Act, the bank capitalization program, the housing plan, the strengthening of the nonbank credit market, the auto plan and our work at the G-20 — have been necessary pieces of the recovery puzzle. They have been designed to increase aggregate demand, get credit flowing again to families and businesses and help them ride out the storm."

Here's the cognitive dissonance: how can we move to a society of savings while simultaneously bulking of lending and credit? Debt is debt, even if it's easily repaid, and it's still there. I've written about this issue a number of times, and I'm still not sure of the correct answer. However, I do know that we can not simultaneously increase debt and reduce it. The massive increases in government spending over the previous two months (combined with the proposed increases in the budget) only make this idea more dissonant.

UPDATES: President Obama's Address on the Economy at Georgetown University

UPDATE 1: Full text of the speech can be found here.

Standard intro's and thanks, with plenty of ums and uhs before spitting out names.

"... even our critics will agree that we've been busy."

"... I want to explain our strategy as clearly as I can. ... Each policy we pursue is driven by a ... vision ... that will generate 'good jobs...'" (what's a 'good' job?).

"This recession is different. ... This recession was caused by a perfect storm of poor-decision-making."

At least he briefly holds home-buyers also responsible for bad decision-making, as well as lenders who offered bad loans, before moving on to the standard 'bad guys' list.

"We had no choice but to attack all fronts of our economic crisis simultaneously. ... My Administration boosted demand by passing the largest economic recovery plan ever [I'll say] ... "
He went on to make the 3.5M jobs claim again, and that the stimulus is not responsible for increasing the deficit and debt (huh?). He then stated that dealing with the long-term deficit (a contradiction in terms; deficit refers to annual negatives not to long-term accrual of debt) and national debt is all about getting health care costs under control, not about actual government spending. What a bizarre argument.

The President is claiming that the 'nationalization argument' doesn't work (implying that no nationalization is occurring), because it would cost more in the long-run. But then argues that intervention and forced restructuring is OK (and apparently isn't nationalization). I'm not sure if he sees the internal contradiction. If borrowers can't repay TARP funds when they want and in full, than the government is regulating that as well. If we're nationalizing, we should at least admit to it and deal with the fallout. Case in point, he's just started discussing requiring new business plans from GM and Chrysler.

Ahh, on to the G-20. "All agreed to [stronger] regulatory reforms ... and to triple [lending by the IMF] ... This is not charity because America's success depends on our ability to [export]."

"The actions are starting to generate ..." work, jobs (cited the Fire Station House that has screamed that gov't. funds had nothing to do with the stoppage of their lay-offs), credit, etc.

Concluding the first part with calling for regulatory reform (it sounds like he's bought into the notion that bad regulation is the real reason for the recession), new education, clean energy (says that we're behind other nations on this. Hmm - like France (nuclear), Britain (oil), Spain (oil), etc.?), etc. In other words, the only way to stop a recession from coming again is to spend, spend, spend (but apparently only the government because he mentioned moving to a saving and spending society), and regulate everyone and everything. I'm hearing no details here, just a restatement of his goals that have been out there since the campaign. Used the parable of the house on the rock vs. the house on the sand, to say that moving on his agenda will put America's house on the rock.

Major points ("pillars of our new foundation"):
1. Regulate Wall Street much more toughly
2. 20% higher college graduation rates; tax credits for college-attendees; teacher-performance pay; movement of students into fields that cause them to 'make things' (what - are you going to dictate degrees?)
3. Green energy. "We've allowed a lot of other countries to outpace us ... the investments we've made in the recovery act will double America's supply of renewable energy in the next three years." Big claim! Sticking with cap and trade on carbon.
4. Stop "sky-rocketing [health] insurance premiums," move to electronic records, make "quality healthcare affordable for everyone." "We've made a committment to fully fund health care reform without [raising costs]." Pure BS, that one. Efficiencies won't fund what you're proposing.
5. Get rid of the debt after economic recovery. Mr. President, by the time recovery comes around, we'll be so deeply in debt, it won't be paid for three generations! Tinkering with savings on the margins isn't going to cut it.

He wants us to focus on the "... medium and long-term budget picture." He's basically making the arguement that investment and spending now will eventually pay off. How do we know this? I've yet to see anyone on his economic team present data that shows why their projections would work, and there's nothing on the recovery.org site that gives this either. He slams entitlement programs (but includes the defense budget in that -huh?), and says we "... will need to get serious about entitlement reform ... by getting serious about health care reform." He's not letting go of that bone. Says that SS-reform and shutting down tax loopholes along with health care reform will balance out the budget long-term.

"That is the house upon the rock: proud, sturdy, and unwavering ..." The American Dream is now the House Upon the Rock - just a leeetle bit out of the context.

The UN Security Council Speaks - Big Whoop-Dee-Dee

The UN Security Council has decided that in lieu of actually taking real action against North Korea, it will tell UN members to 'tighten sanctions.' What makes them think the UN members will do anything about this when so many have refused to enact the sanctions already in place? According to a BBC article:

"The Security Council condemns the 5 April 2009 launch by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which is in contravention of Security Council resolution 1718 of 2006," said Claude Heller, the Mexican president of the Security Council.

The statement also ordered the UN Sanctions Committee to begin enforcing both financial sanctions and an existing arms embargo against North Korea.

UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon has welcomed the council's move, saying it sent "a unified message".

But the BBC's Matthew Price at the UN says it remains to be seen how far member states will go to enforce the sanctions.

Indeed.

Finally, Something Positive to Say for President Obama

Yesterday's perfectly coordinated rescue of the Maesk-Alabama's captain, finally gives this blog a reason to admire a decision by President Obama, who pre-authorized the use of deadly force and a rescue. Three pirates were killed, and a fourth (who was in the negotiations according to some reports), and now the world faces the larger question of what to do with international criminals. Larry Johnson discusses this at No Quarter, where he has posted a portion of his interview with AP over the rescue.

In the meanwhile, Capt. Phillips and the US Navy and Air Force SPECOP members are the heroes of the day, and President Obama made a good call.

Happy Easter

Alleluia, the Lord is risen. The Lord is risen, indeed. Alleluia!

Good Friday

O, My people! What have I done to thee that thou shouldst testify against me?

No politics this weekend.

Isn't This a Nice Thing for the Kingdom our President Bowed To?

According to Reuters:

RIYADH Reuters) - A Saudi man has divorced his wife by text message, a newspaper said Thursday.

The man was in Iraq when he sent the SMS informing her she was no longer his spouse. He followed up with a telephone call to two of his relatives, the daily Arab News reported.

Saudi Arabia practices a strict form of Islamic Sharia law, and clerics preside over Sharia courts as judges. Under the law a man can divorce his wife by saying "I divorce you" three times.

I forget, why should we show obsequious respect to a leader who tolerates this in his country? Politeness would be one thing, but what happened to 'women's rights are human rights?' Human rights under these systems seemed to be reduced to showing Sharia respect, rather than the rights of people. That bow, disguised as a two-handed shake (in which one hand did not participate - see the link on the word respect), is really starting to grate on my nerves.

Barney Frank Loses All Semblance of Dignity

At a speech at Harvard, a student (Joel Pollack) asked Barney Frank how much, if any, responsibility he bore for the economic meltdown. Frank attacked Pollack, essentially calling him a right-wing conspiracy tool, and refused to answer the question. Pollack was dignified, quiet and respectful, but persistent. When Frank said he hadn't been the Chair (of the House Financial Services Committee,) until 2007, and asked what he could have done anyway, Pollack asked about better monitoring of bonuses and Frank's ties to Frannie and Freddie. Scores Pollack - 1, Frank - 0.

One thing is clear, Barney Frank permits no one to question him, ever. Not about the money he took from Frannie and Freddie, not about his ties through his former partner with Fannie and Freddie, not about his repeated defense of their lending practices and refusal to permit regulation, not about his current roll as a powerful chair - never.

I'll say this for Frank; he never fails to astound with his level of deception, hypocrisy and downright nastiness. Neither do some of these other clowns:

Vandals Destroy Monument to Fallen Hero

No matter what your beliefs, feelings about the war or the previous Administration, this is an utter disgrace.

From Families United:

About Us | Join Our Mailing List | Events | Your Story | Families United in the News | Support Families United

Vandals Destroy Monument to Fallen Hero -
We NEED Your Help!

---

Vandals in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan have, for the second time, targeted a memorial to LCPL Justin Ellsworth, KIA Fallujah, Iraq- 2004. (Before and After Pictures Below) The first time the vandals ripped the American flag off the pole, poured gasoline on it, and burned the flag atop the boots, rifle, and helmet.

Justin’s father, John Ellsworth, has been a vocal supporter of our troops and is now the President of Military Families United, the nation’s leading military family advocacy organization in Washington, DC. Military Families United has been an outspoken voice for our troops and their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as advocating for strong national defense policies and increased funding for our troops.

We need your help to stand up to the politically motivated dishonoring of America’s heroes. Families United has started a fund that will collect money to repair memorials vandalized by those that seek to disgrace the service and sacrifice of our American Heroes. The Families United Memorial Restoration Fund will work to quickly repair and restore the monuments to our Fallen Heroes, not just Justin, but every fallen Hero. Families United is committed to making sure that the American people know about these heinous and disgraceful acts. CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO THE FUND

A letter from John Ellsworth, LCPL Justin Ellsworth’s father is below:

For those of you that do not know me, my name is John Ellsworth and I am the Vice President of Families United. My son made the ultimate sacrifice for his country when he was killed while serving in Iraq in 2004. To honor my son, the citizens of the City of Mt. Pleasant, Michigan erected a monument in September of 2005. The citizens of Mt. Pleasant collected the funds and paid for the monument and the city provided the area near the Michigan Vietnam Memorial. In July of 2007, vandals tore down the flagpole and burned the American Flag over the monument. This happened again on Monday night when hateful vandals tore apart my son’s monument and stole the bronze inverted rifle and kevlar. My family and I are absolutely devastated at this action and feel like we are mourning his loss all over again. These vandals have taken an honorable and elegant monument to our son and made it a focal point of their hatred and destruction. They have not only dishonored the memory of my son, but also the service and sacrifice of every American veteran that has risked their life in defense of this country. John Ellsworth, Proud Father of LCPL Justin Ellsworth, KIA 11/13/04

Families United needs your help to rebuild this monument to restore honor to LCPL Ellsworth’s service and sacrifice. In order to send a message to these criminals, we want to replace the destroyed and stolen pieces of the monument as soon as possible.

And that is why we need your help today! Please consider making a tax deductible donation to the Families United Memorial Restoration Fund - so we can rebuild this monument which serves as a tribute to those that have served and died defending our country. Your contribution will help us stand up for our veterans, military families and active duty troops against this type of unbelievable, illegal and disgraceful vandalism.

Your tax-deductible contribution to this fund will ensure that our fallen heroes or their families never have to worry about political activists trying to dishonor their service to this country.

Whether it’s a contribution of $25, $50 or $100, we would be grateful for your help today. If you want to donate more, that would be even more helpful.

Before

After

Forward this email to a friend. Click Here To Donate

This is Rich - Iran tells the US to Offer Honest Dialogue and Change

While using the word dialogue, Iran managed to still verbally spank the US and the President. Ahmadinejad offered dialogue only if the US will become honest, and give up its evil ways. In case you thought he meant just President Bush, Ahmadinejad clarified that he meant the US policies that 'go back for tens of years.' Funny, I always thought disguising a weapons program under the guise of an energy program was pretty dishonest. And calling for the destruction of Israel, while denying the Holocaust is just despicable. Meanwhile, the gaftastic VP Biden changed his mind last year, and switched (from allowing that Israel has the right to first strike) to instructing Israel to take to possibility of first strike off the table. If someone had called for my destruction, and then developed a weapon to end all others, I'd go for the first strike. Just saying ....

I wonder if talking to Iran is going to prove any more successfuly than talking to N. Korea. Any takers?

UPDATE: Washington Will Do Something (or other)!

Update 1: How much do you want to bet that North Korea actually means its threat to take 'strong action' should the UN dare to sanction it.

As predicted here and elsewhere, when N. Korea fired off an ICBM test disguised as a satellite launch over the weekend, we and Japan demanded that the UN security conference do something. Just as predictably, China and Russia flipped us the bird. It really doesn't even matter if this launch was an actual failure, if there really was a satellite in the nose cone, or if Kim Jong Il had succeeded in playing revolutionary songs from space. The UN will do nothing, and the words of these agreements mean nothing without action to back them up. President Obama can give 'strong' speeches all he wants - it changes nothing. If our only response to proliferation is to say that we need to cut our weapons (a laudable goal to be sure, but irrelevant to N. Korea), and that we won't really do anything, than N. Korea has no incentives to change its behavior.

Highlights from the G20 Final Communique

From Reuters:

-- "To treble resources available to the IMF to $750 billion, to support a new SDR allocation of $250 billion, to support at least $100 billion of additional lending by the MDBs (multilateral development banks), to ensure $250 billion of support for trade finance, and to use the additional resources from agreed IMF gold sales for concessional finance for the poorest countries."

That constitutes "an additional $1.1 trillion programme of support to restore credit, growth and jobs in the world economy".

Compared to the US stimulus spending to date, this is almost a drop in the bucket. It appears to represent a minor concession to President Obama's push to spend out way "out of" (more like into, but why nitpick at a grand time like this) debt and the recession.

-- The measures taken will "by the end of next year, amount to $5 trillion, raise output by 4 percent, and accelerate the transition to a green economy".

-- "Central banks have pledged to maintain expansionary policies for as long as needed and to use the full range of monetary policy instruments, including unconventional instruments, consistent with price stability."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't most of the monetary policy instruments already been used, and what the heck is an unconventional instrument - could it be printing wads of cash?

-- To put in place "credible exit strategies from the measures that need to be taken now to support the financial sector and restore global demand ... thereby reducing the scale of the fiscal consolidation necessary over the longer term."

Don't worry your pretty little heads about this one. We're just going to take over all the banks and major private firms, pretend that we know what we're doing with them, and then have an 'exit strategy' when we're done screwing around with them.

-- "To extend regulation and oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, instruments and markets. This will include, for the first time, systemically important hedge funds."

-- "To endorse and implement the FSF's tough new principles on pay and compensation and to support sustainable compensation schemes and the corporate social responsibility of all firms."

Now all the world's governments can tell corporations everywhere what they should and should not produce, what compensation is 'appropriate,' and which chosen few will be allowed to make money. I wonder if they sang Kumbaya while the made that decision.

-- "To take action against non-cooperative jurisdictions, including tax havens. We stand ready to deploy sanctions to protect our public finances and financial systems ... We note that the OECD has today published a list of countries assessed by the Global Forum against the international standard for exchange of tax information."

What are they going to do? Invade the 'tax havens?' Those tax havens are sovereign countries.

-- "To extend regulatory oversight and registration to Credit Rating Agencies to ensure they meet the international code of good practice, particularly to prevent unacceptable conflicts of interest."

OK - I'm somewhat interested in this one. Those agencies have a lot of power, and have no consistent standards of good practice.

-- "We reaffirm the commitment made in Washington: to refrain from raising new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services, imposing new export restrictions, or implementing World Trade Organisation (WTO) inconsistent measures to stimulate exports.

We're going to take over the world's finances and businesses, but don't worry, trade won't suffer in the least.

Call me a cynic, but I see little that will make a difference or that is appropriate (unless you're a power-mad president or PM, then it might be), but we'll see. I've attached the link here for the full communique. The wording of the opening paragraphs ("We the leaders of the Group of Twenty ...") provides for some amusement if nothing else

UPDATED: They're Shaking in their Boots!

UPDATE 1: Yup - the UN Security Council will do nada, because two permanent members want it to do nada. Why should we even bother with them?

From Reuters:

'The U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity on the sidelines of a G20 meeting in London, said Washington would react if North Korea launched a missile."There are U.N. Security Council resolutions so I would expect we would be talking to the U.N. Security Council about how to respond," the official told reporters.'

I guess that will show the mean old bad man! Because he really pays attention to anything else the UN says, right? I'm not saying we shoot arbitrarily shoot the launch down, but I seriously doubt a verbal spanking from the UN Security Council will cause Kim Jong Il to do anything except laugh. And giving him a 'stern' talking to, isn't likely to change things. Fueling the rocket seems like a pretty good sign of their determination to launch a missile that is no different than an ICBM. S. Korea wants us to shoot it down, but that's also not likely. With a successful missile test, N. Korea will have a valuable item to sell to other countries - say enemies of Israel.

Grade Obama's Performance

Here's your big chance to influence the MSM's cesspool otherwise known as MSNBC.

President Obama overstepping his leagal authority? - How can that be?!

Even the corrupt Sen. Dodd is expressing consternation and confusion about the legal authority under which the Administration is acting with respect to the auto industry. The TARP legislation was specifically designed to make funds available to financial institutions, but as with last year's auto bailout, the Obama Administration wants to use those funds for GM and possibly Chrysler. While the Administration will undoubtedly make the same arguments advanced by President Bush (that the Treasury Secretary has broad discretion and that the auto industry has its own lending institutions that qualify), both the Democratic and Republican Congressional leadership seems uneasy about the power grab. I wrote about this the other day, but it does seem that the President and his Administration are intent on imposing their will on the private sector. Rep. Frank is helping them along with his proposal to dictate compensation packages for all employees of any institution receiving federal assistance. I love the new NBC show, Kings, but this is taking the whole life imitating art thing too far.

But, too cheer us all up, Fox Nation has provided us with a new music video to accompany tea party coverage. It's a lot of fun, so link over (I'll upload when Blogger stop freaking out on me) and enjoy.

Obama in Europe

This is hilarious. Thank you to the Christian Science Monitor for an early morning laugh.

The Collectivization of GM

President Obama and the 'auto task force' seem to be moving past just having a sacrificial lamb in Wagoner, to wholesale manipulation of production and management decisions. Jim Kuhnhenn writing for the AP today reports:

On Tuesday, Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican whose state is home to auto manufacturing plants, said the administration's aggressive intervention in the industry sets "a very dangerous precedent."

It wasn't just the forced ouster of Wagoner that causes him concern, Corker said on CBS's "The Early Show." He accused the administration of taking a "we know best" attitude in connection with the problems in the domestic industry and said that should "send a chill throughout the country."

The president was hardly ambiguous about his desire to use the beleaguered state of the industry to press one of his top policy agendas — an energy policy that emphasizes the manufacture of fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly cars.

"The United States will lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars," he said.

If you're old enough to remember the last decades of the Soviet Union, you should remember the collapse of its state-run collectives and enterprises. These were utterly inefficient affairs, that produced little, polluted much, and often failed to pay their employees. The accompanying long 'bread lines,' that marked the 50s - mid-80s of the Soviet Union were mute testament to the utter failure of that kind of decision-making, but the Politburo continued to run a well-oiled PR campaign that forced citizens to pay lip-service to the 'glorious success' of the USSR.

The Administration's efforts to manipulate the market are no doubt well-intentioned, but they are doomed to failure. Not only does the government lack expertise and experience in these matters, it is trying to force both the supply and demand sides of the economy to meet what it determines is 'good,' rather than allowing demand to drive supply (and cost). Government determination of what products GM can and can not produce, and at what price they sell them, will not help to save the US auto industry, particularly if those products are not wanted by the majority of the public. Most studies indicate that consumers are interested in 'green' products, but that they also demand costs comparable to current prices, improved performance, space, (especially in the US), and power.

Government can play a role, however. Like it or not, fossil fuel supplies are not infinite, nor is their use particularly healthy (economically and otherwise) in the long run. The government can help fund the R&D side of the equation, and can provide tax breaks to encourage buyers. This allows the market to function, while still encouraging long-term changes in behavior and decision-making, and with far less cost to the tax payer.

The bribery of Sen. Dodd

The Washington Times has published an article that walks right up to the line of accusing Sen. Dodd of outright bribery and corruption. According to the article:

'As Democrats prepared to take control of Congress after the 2006 elections, a top boss at the insurance giant American International Group Inc. told colleagues that Sen. Christopher J. Dodd was seeking re-election donations and he implored company executives and their spouses to give.
The message in the Nov. 17, 2006, e-mail from Joseph Cassano, AIG Financial Products chief executive, was unmistakable: Mr. Dodd was "next in line" to be chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which oversees the insurance industry, and he would "have the opportunity to set the committee's agenda on issues critical to the financial services industry.
Now, two years later, Mr. Dodd has emerged as a central figure in the government's decision to let executives at the now-failing AIG collect more than $218 million in bonuses, according to the Connecticut attorney general - even as the company was receiving billions of dollars in assistance from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). He acknowledged that he slipped a provision into legislation in February that authorized the bonuses, but said the Treasury Department asked him to do it.'

Sounds like bribery to me. Of course, Dodd blames the whole mess on the hapless Treasury Secretary and Larry Summers. Barney Frank likes to say that the AIG executives took bribes by accepting their bonuses. That's rich coming from Frank, who took large amounts from Fannie, Freddie and AIG, but if one accepts it on its face, then demanding re-election funds surely qualifies as a bribe.

GM's CEO takes the fall - UPDATED UPDATES

GM's CEO, Richard Wagoner, has abruptly resigned at the request of the Obama Administration as a condition of new federal funding. While the recent moves by the Administration toward tighter control of private industry are of great concern, at least this resignation will force some restructuring of the company (along with Chrysler). Of perhaps greater concern, however, is the continued flood of tax dollars to prop up failing industries. The sad truth is that the American auto industry (particularly as centered in Detroit) started failing long before the current recession, and should have restructured themselves years ago. Ford is the closest thing Detroit has to a success story, and that is not saying much.

The newest requests from GM and Chrysler total $21.6 billion, and even before meeting the requirement to present a restructuring plan to Congress, the Obama Administration appears to have promised a new bailout (although a figure has not been named). There is no indication on how far Congress and the Administration are prepared to go with the bailouts, what the final total will be, what the vetting process is, or if there is any kind of a plan whatsoever in place to ensure that the companies will be successful in the end. It all seems a little like fiddling while Rome burns.

UPDATE 1:
President Obama stated today that a short bankruptcy/restructuring period may be necessary for GM and Chrysler, and is giving them a 30-day extension on the original deadline to present a recovery plan. Additional federal funding is the carrot in all of this. Chrysler is also expected to complete a merger with Fiat within that time-frame. The shotgun wedding is being negotiated, in part, by the Administration, with pot-sweetener of $8-$10-billion likely. GM shares dropped like a rock (22.9%) in response to the firing of Wagoner and today's announcement.

UPDATE 2:
One has to wonder if Wagoner is being punished for funneling more GM pac-money to the GOP instead of the DNC. If they had been more like Sores, would he have survived?

Get me some of the rose-colored glasses!

The CBO is once again screaming (in a nice, polite, rational kind of way) that the Administration's projections of real GDP and annual deficits, over the next ten years, are too high and too low respectively. Last week, the CBO released it's revised estimates of the President's budget proposals. The graph below shows a much larger than expected estimate of deficit-spending resulting from the budget proposal:
You can access the accompanying PDF here.

Now the CBO has released an analysis of the real GDP under the budget proposal. A key point made in the director's blog is:

• CBO’s projection of real GDP is lower than that of the Administration throughout the next 10 years

While the CBO office still advocates stimulus spending, it has consistently assessed the actual legislative proposals as having a moderate detrimental impact. These figures possibly explain the current push by the Administration to promote its budget and tax proposals, and why Congressional members and the public alike are becoming concerned about the long-term impact to the country's economic stability and strength.

Brothers at War

The upcoming documentary, Brothers at War, looks like it will be a powerful and intimate look at the effect of service within a family. The film was made, directed and produced by a brother of two men serving in Iraq. Because this is a low-budget, under-the-radar documentary, you may need to petition to have it shown in your area. The official movie site has a form to promote showings.

editorial: http://www.military.com/entertainment/brothers-at-war/
movie site: http://www.brothersatwarmovie.com/#/Home

Should We Move Away from a Debt-Based Economy?

I'm back after a little break to finish my dissertation proposal with a conundrum: should we move away from our debt (or if you prefer a gentler word, credit)-based society? This question appears to be at the heart of Peter Schiff's commentary in today's Money Morning (not something I normally read, but the article was passed along by someone else). Sure, easy credit allows easy expansion during a growth period, but what happens when growth slows (much less during a major contraction)? That's right, the debt rears up to bite us in the collective butt. The problem with moving to a more fiscally-sound, dare I say prudent, approach of course is that the wild expansion of the last decade would not be possible. I'm not sure Americans can stomach that, even if it's the equivalent of national spinach. What do you think?

A New Element (Re)Discovered

Whole-sale ripped off from an email forwarded to me:

New Element Discovered

Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet
known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron,
25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy
neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held
together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities
of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no
electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes
detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into
contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would
normally take less than a second, to take from four days to four years
to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years; it does not decay,
but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the
assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact,
Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each
reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe
that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration.
This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium , an
element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has
half as many peons but twice as many morons.

May God help us survive this growing mass before it becomes a black hole
that sucks us all in.

Why Politicians Shouldn't Direct Federal Funding

Los Angeles Rep., Maxine Waters, is under investigation for ties to a bank to which she has lobbying ties. According to the LA Times:

A month before Congress enacted the bailout program, Waters helped set up a meeting between the chief executive of the bank, representatives of other financial institutions and Treasury officials. "When a member of the financial services committee calls, you pay special attention," said Jeb Mason, who was a high-ranking Treasury official last fall.

Ms. Water's husband was on the board of the bank until last year, and remains a stock holder (reported holdings as of 2007 were $500,000).

Waters was a senior member of the congressional committee dealing with the financial crisis when OneUnited Bank -- one of the nation's largest minority-owned institutions -- received $12 million in bailout funds.

This type of corruption is a perfect illustration for the long-standing argument on this blog: earmarks or any other Congressional authority that allows Congress to specifically direct federal funds to individuals, special projects, particular contractors, etc. will inevitably lead to corruption. At the very least: contracts should undergo a competitive and transparent bidding process, Congressional members must be required to disclose any financial or lobbying ties, and local and state governments should have some control over dissemination of funds.

In 2007, that most liberal of publications, The Nation, fully agreed that earmarks lead to corruption. Now? - nary a peep. Most of the media has been able to realize that at the least, President Obama isn't bringing pledged change to the system. Change can always come later, right? The champion of this issue, Sen. McCain, understands that we are still in a 'business as usual' mode in Washington, and that is unlikely to change.

Record Jobless Claims

New unemployment filings for February were 667,000, while the total continuing claims were in excess of 5-million as of the end of the month.

It doesn't look like consumer confidence is coming back anytime soon. Poor Andre will continue to bear the brunt of it all.

Pretty Soon, We'll be Talkin' Real Money

Last night, the Senate passed the omnibus spending bill, allowing the measure to move to President Obama's desk where he's expected to immediately sign it. The bill is only a budget-filler to take the government through until September, when the trillion-dollar-plus budget for 2010 is expected to come up.

I don't object to passing a budget - it's a necessary exercise. But the $8-billion in pet projects really bug me, and the fact that a number of prominent Republicans/traitors support the earmark process makes it doubly hard to swallow.

The big immediate excuse by all for those earmarks?
"It is in America's best interest to close the book on the last administration and let the new one hit the ground running," said Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Please; Congress holds the purse-strings and determines what is in and out of the budget. Even if President Bush had personally requested each and every earmark (the largest requester by dollar value is Murtha, and the largest by number of earmarks is Shelby), blaming what is chosen today on something that originally came up for debate on a prior Administration (Bush refused to sign this bill until some of the earmarks were removed) is the height of childishness.

Here is a list of all the earmarks by dollar value. Strangely, one of the other reasons offered up for allowing the bill to pass as is, is that the earmark dollar value, as a percent of the total budget, is small, and that focus on that small amount is simply diversionary. Wow! $8-billion is such a small amount that you shouldn't worry your pretty little head about it. Now go back to the corner and play with your dolls. Here's a thought - I don't care if the amount is only $1-million. It's the corruption and waste that bothers me.

The long-term excuse for continuing the earmark culture is that the money would be spent anyway, and Congressional members are simply ensuring a 'fair share' for their individual states. This is an amazingly duplicitous argument. It would be reasonable to fight for a block of money to go to one's state or district, and then let the local and state governments go through their normal budgeting and allocation process. Instead, by having Congress decide which individuals projects are funded, local and state governments, and the normal bidding process are circumvented. This power can only lead to corruption in the end, and that end result is the reason McCain has been screaming about earmarks for twenty years.

Female force

So perhaps I'm behind the times, but I'd never heard of Bluewater Production's graphic novel series, Female Force, until this morning. Apparently they started with Hillary Clinton, are now profiling Sarah Palin, and will then move on to Michelle Obama and Princess Di. I love graphic novels, and I suppose the relatively neutral and respectful treatment in a 'bio-lite' setting will at least get younger readers to find out a little about some of these women, but I wonder if it doesn't just encourage a decline in reading and thinking.

What do you think?

Fairy-Tale Land

Here's the latest news from Fairy-Tale-Land (sometimes known as Washington):

Treasury Secretary Tim Taxes-Are-For-Everyone-Else Geithner, Ben Bernanke and Peter Orszag all testified at Capitol Hill this week, defending the now $3.6 trillion omnibus spending bill, otherwise called a budget. Forbes writes:

According to the Treasury chief, the tax increases, which help offset the tax cuts contained in the stimulus bill, are motivated by more than just balancing the budget. Geithner says the administration feels a "moral imperative to make our society more just." It's good economic policy too, he adds: "It will mean there is again a fairer, more equitably shared tax burden on the vast majority of Americans."

Sounds like redistribution to me, with a tax cheat at the helm. (Not that there's anything wrong with tax cheats in Fairy-Tale Land. In fact, it's becoming a job requirement. The new nominese for US Trade Rep meets the basic requirement of failing to pay taxes). The article goes on:

Upon its release last week, the budget was criticized for its optimistic outlook on the economy. Christina Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, says projections about future government spending and tax revenues are based on an assumption that the economy will shrink by 1.2% in 2009 but return to strong growth of 3.2% in 2010.

That's noticeably sunnier than recent forecasts from the Federal Reserve and Congressional Budget Office. But even Bernanke (who before being appointed Fed Chairman by Bush was the chair of his Council of Economic Advisers) defended the forecasts.

"It's true the administration's forecast is a little more optimistic than the Fed and [Congressional Budget Office's] forecasts," he said. "It's important to understand these forecasts are not precise. Although they are on the optimistic side, they are within the range of uncertainty all of us face."

So the budget is based on a fairy-tale made up number that falls within the 'range of uncertainty.' Huh? This is absolutely the first time I've ever heard of a budget being based on the 'optimistic side' of a 'range of uncertainty.' I'm sure that prior budgets have also had a fair bit of magical tweaking, but when we're in the middle of the deepest recession since the late 70's and early 80's, optimistic projection in order to justify both spending and heavier taxation is ludicrous. I like my fairy tales to remain in the world of fiction. They're pretty inconvenient in the real world.

Meanwhile in Fairy-Tale-Land, the President sent a private letter (allowed to leak to the media), to Russia's President Medvedev, which President Obama says did not offer a quid-pro-quo on a missile shield in exchange for help with Iran. Instead, the president corrected himself:

The president said that his recent letter to Moscow expressed his stance that reducing the threat of a nuclear Iran in turn reduces the need for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe.

Senior U.S. administration officials previously suggested there was a trade-off in the letter, which they said hinted that plans for the defense shield could be unnecessary if Russian President Dmitry Medvedev helped in blocking Iran's progress toward building long-range missiles.

But Obama walked that claim back in a session with reporters following his meeting Tuesday with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

"It was simply a statement of fact that I've made previously," he said, stressing that the defense shield would be aimed at Iran, not Russia.

This is ridiculous on so many levels. Even if one truly thinks this would be a fair trade, and in the long-term interests of our country (and it may very well be given the system's frequent test failures), one doesn't announce to the world that we're willing to trade away a piece of our defense network. Nor does a good trade get made by putting all the cards on the table up front. It seems likely that this was essentially a quid-pro-quo offer when Secretary Clinton emphasized that the shield is only for defense against Iran. We certainly need something to deal with Iran, which is now thought to have enough material for nuclear weapon's development, but which may or may not be close to development of an actual weapon.

While kow-towing to Russia and the most liberal, anti-business elements of Fairy-Tale-Land, President Obama managed to diss our nation's closest ally by abruptly canceling a joint-news conference with Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Apparently the White House didn't let Brown's staff know of the change until the last minute.

And finally, the magic of Fairy-Tale-Land has wreaked havoc once again on the stock markets. Almost every time someone on the president's Council of Economic Advisors (or apparently the president himself) opens his mouth on the 'recovery plans,' the markets tank. The DOW plunged below 7000 for the first time since the tech. bubble burst in the late 90's, from its all-time high in 2007 (note to Congress and the President: 2007 is before you got your hands on everything - it might be a sign), and the president now has his very own bear market. But all of this OK in Fairy-Tale-Land since according to the White House, the stock market is no longer a good indicator of economic trends.

Does anyone know the way out of Fairy-Tale Land?

Another speech - another drop

President Obama spoke today about his intentions to reform health care.

While he spoke, the markets took another plunge, ultimately shaking out to between -4 (S&P) to -281.4 (Dow).

I have a solution, Mr. President. You and everyone on your economic team must either focus solely on the economic problems and their solutions, or you must be quiet. The time allotted isn't enough to split the energy and focus of your 'brain-trust' (such as it is). Trying to add on vague statements about reforming, just about everything, dilutes any trust of interest.

Don't buy stuff you cannot afford!

UPDATE: Worth girding your loins over

This posting has been updated to correct viewing problems.

This title and subtitle say it all:

Budget Battle Begins: Historic Ideological Shift

Republicans Pick Apart Obama's Budget, Calling It the Return of Big Government

Rush Limbaugh drew the battle lines:
"What is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundations?" Limbaugh said.

While I agree with Eric Cantor, that we shouldn't hope for the total failure of the Obama Administration, Limbaugh has a point: it's OK to hope for the failure of certain policies. In particular, policies that are based on the abandonment of capitalism.

The battle lines are drawn. Where will you fall?