Michael Barone likens this year's election to the election of 1976. I think he has a point. The current political environment has something in common with the aftermath of Watergate and the toxic political environment that confronted Republicans in 1976.

In tracing the source of Ford's comeback nearly to catch Carter by election day, Barone credits the Ford campaign with altering the mood of the nation. Among other things, he cites the Ford campaign's use of the song "I'm Feeling Good About America" with contributing to the comeback ("I'm feeling good about Gerald Ford, and I'm feeling good about me!").

I have absolutely no recollection of "I'm Feeling Good About America," but I do recall Meredith Willson's "Whip Inflation Now." The song had been commissioned by the Ford administration as part of its memorable Whip Inflation Now campaign. In President Ford's speech announcing the WIN program he included helpful advice to average Americans struggling with the effects of his own (and Nixon's) bad economic policy: be sure to eat all the food on your plate. He also commissioned the Whip Inflation Now theme song, played live on television by Willson following Ford's speech announcing the WIN program.

Alan Greenspan remembers too. In The Age of Turbulence, Greenspan recalls his reaction as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the Whip Inflation Now campaign when it was presented at a senior staff meeting by the White House speechwriting team: "This is unbelievable stupidity. What am I doing here?"

To comment on this post go here.

In his intensely reported June 2 Weekly Standard cover story on Secretary Rice, Stephen Hayes took a look at the major areas of foreign policy committed to Rice's care during Bush's second term: North Korea, Syria, Iran and Iran's terrorist proxies. In these areas, the administration's record is one of miscalculation, retreat and failure. Why?

In May Secretary Rice hailed the Lebanese government's capitulation to Hezbollah as "a positive step toward resolving the current crisis." Hayes's article showed that Secretary Rice applies similar verbal dexterity to address a series of foreign policy disappointments.

To outward appearances Secretary Rice has delegated responsibility for diplomatic issues with North Korea to Christopher Hill, with Iran to Nicholas Burns, and reserved Israeli-Palestinian issues to herself. While Secretary Rice seeks to salvage a legacy out of her weak record, American interests in every one of these areas have suffered. The "surge" of troops to Iraq has produced the signal foreign policy success of George Bush's second term.

This week the decomposition of American policy on Iran was visibly on display. In the new issue of the Weekly Standard, Hayes updates his cover story to document the administration's latest foreign policy reversal in "Stunningly shameful."

How has Secretary Rice persuaded President Bush support her in policies that abrogate key tenets of the Bush doctrine and other administration policies? How, for example, has she persuaded him on one day to announce a Middle East peace conference limited to those states that recognize Israel's right to exist, and only a few months later to join her in securing the attendance of several enemies of Israel's right to exist together with one such enemy that is also a designated state sponsor of terror?

Today's news brings word that at the talks with Iran, with the United States in attendance for the first time, Iran ruled out suspending its uranium enrichment. According to the AP report, the presence of Undersecretary of State William Burns at the talks had led to hopes Iran would compromise on suspension. Or something.

To comment on this post go here.

Jo Stafford died Wednesday at 90. Terry Teachout paid tribute to her and collected links to her obituaries in "Jo Stafford, RIP." Our occasional contributor Bill Katz of Urgent Agenda observes:

There are respectful obituaries, but it has not been headline news. There are no front-page stories, as with Sinatra, no huge remembrances from TV commentators. In fact, some younger readers may not even know her name. But Jo Stafford was one of the great singers of the 20th century, and revered among American soldiers of World War II and Korea.

The word "great" is overused. But, If you don't believe me when I apply it to Stafford, get a CD of her singing, "You Belong to Me," a hit of the early fifties, and ask if you've ever heard a sweeter, more pure, more perfectly pitched voice. Maybe Ella. All right, I'll grant Ella, but I'll call them equals.

Stephen Holden, in the New York Times's obituary, said her "pure, nearly vibrato-less voice, with perfect intonation, conveyed steadfast devotion and reassurance with delicate understatement."

Jo Stafford came to prominence in the late thirties and early forties as a member of the Pied Pipers, a popular singing group attached, early in its life, to the Tommy Dorsey band. Frank Sinatra joined the Dorsey group around this time, and did some singing with the Pipers. He said of Jo Stafford, "It was a joy to sit on the bandstand and listen to her."

This was a time when singers didn't have the status they have today. It was the big-band era, and the bands were the stars. Singers and vocal groups were often band employees – sometimes they were just low-paid props - and few singers ventured out to pursue solo careers. Most "solos" by singers were assigned by bandleaders, as part of the band's regular work. The singer might get $50, and no royalties.

That begin to change during World War II. A musicians' strike that dragged on from 1942 into 1943 made it impossible for record companies to use musicians. So, they turned to singers, and used choral groups as accompaniment. The public's affection switched to vocalists, and remained there after the strike was settled, with the big bands fading away. (I've always loved Peggy Lee's comment on the big-band era: "If I knew it'd be that important, I would have paid more attention." )

Jo Stafford had a number of solos during the war – "I'll Be Seeing You," "I'll Walk Alone," "I Don't Want to Walk Without You," – sentimental, and beautifully done. The soldiers loved her, dubbing her "G.I. Jo." The Japanese learned how popular she was, and blasted her records from loudspeakers directed at American battle lines, hoping to make the troops homesick.

After the war, as the age of the vocalist was born, she had a string of hits as a solo performer, unattached to any band: "Candy," which went to number one on the charts, "You Belong to Me," "Shrimp Boats," "Make Love to Me," "Jumbalaya," and many others.

Like Sinatra, Jo Stafford paid enormous attention to the lyric. She was a balladeer. Every word was articulated and given meaning - and you didn't need a hip-hop dictionary to translate the song into English. Most of the Jo Stafford hits were swept away by the coming of rock 'n roll. However, they remain an elegant and important part of the great American songbook.

She was, by the way, also a comedienne. She and her husband, the musician Paul Weston, did a series of albums that spoofed popular songs. The comedy recordings continued into the late seventies, with takeoffs on "Stayin' Alive" and "I am Woman."

I never knew Jo Stafford. As a popular singer, her time as a star had ended long before I joined the Tonight Show staff. But anyone who has heard that voice will not forget it. She was one of those who created, and sustained, the golden era of American song. Fortunately, we have the recordings to prove it.

To comment on this post go here.

Michael Ramirez observes, as Barack Obama sets off for Europe and Asia accompanied by his biggest fans, other than himself:

To comment on this post go here.

Israel continues to face many serious threats and potential threats: a nuclear Iran, an emboldened Hezbollah, and the dislike or hatred of various European states and some on the American left. But one senses that a greater threat is posed by what looks like rampant corruption within Israel itself.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert symbolizes the problem. Golda Meir resigned after the Yom Kippur war, which Israel won. Olmert did not resign after the botched war in Lebanon. This contrast alone suggests decline.

But now Olmert faces credible charges of corruption. An American businessman, Morris Talansky, says he gave Olmert more than $150,000 over a 15 year period, much of it cash stuffed into envelopes. Talansky says that, though the money was intended to help fund Olmert's political campaigns, in fact it helped support Olmert's lavish lifestyle -- a fancy Italian vacation, fine cigars, and a stay at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, D.C.

Olmert is also being investigated over evidence that he may have bilked various charities of more than $100,000 by billing multiple organizations for the same flights and hotel stays. These organizations are said to include the Holocaust memorial authority, a group that supports Israeli soldiers, and a group that helps mentally retarded children.

Olmert claims that it's all a set-up by corrupt state law enforcement authorities. If true, that would exonerate Olmert, but it would hardly reduce the sense that corruption is rampant in Israel. Nor does that sense rest on the Olmert affair, whatever the truth of it. One reads frequently of venality in high places in Israel.

Israelis live under great pressure, and it is not surprising that they have become quite materialistic. Americans are at least as bad, with less excuse. And while an Israel as materialistic as today's might not have prevailed in 1948, there's no reason to assume that it cannot survive today, given the technological and related advantages it possesses. But a corrupt Israel -- one in which its soldiers are asked to sacrifice so much while its leaders line their pockets -- is another matter.

To comment on this post go here.

Phil Gramm has resigned from his role as John McCain's campaign co-chairman, following the uproar over his comments that the United States has become a "nation of whiners" and that we are in a "mental recession." The comments were not baseless, but they were highly impolitic. As part of the McCain campaign, Gramm's role when speaking to the media was not, in my view, to make every conceivable true statement about the economy, but rather to make true statements about the economy that wouldl assist McCain's candidacy.

After Gramm made his remarks, McCain joked that there might be a role in his administration for Gramm as ambassador to Belarus. I suspect that Gramm would have a more prominent role to play, and that's a good thing.

To comment on this post go here.

In 2000 NPR's Terry Gross conducted a terrific interview with Dion Dimucci, whose birthday we're celebrating today. It's an utterly engrossing interview, no pun intended, by turns funny and moving, equal parts talk and song. Listen to Dion sing "Jambalaya" and recall that when he started performing the song at age 13 he had no idea what gumbo was. Listen to Dion recall Father Joe, the neighborhood priest. The interview is also updated with good excerpts of Dion's 2006 "Bronx in Blue" release. Check out the interview here.

I suspect that most of our readers have already seen Charles Krauthammer's column on Barack Obama's egomania. In fact, I may have been the last informed conservative to have read it.

Krauthammer's piece explains a great deal. For example, I think it explains why Obama is so prone to leave himself exposed by his own words. Thus, by ridiculing Americans for not speaking foreign languages when he speaks none, Obama opened himself up to ridicule. But when he is orating to an enthralled audience, does Obama understand that he speaks no foreign languages? A Redeemer -- the one we have been waiting for -- would be able to speak foreign languages. So it may seem plausible (or even clear) to Obama that (yes) he can.

Consider also Obama's habit of misstating his prior positions. Obama said on multiple occasions that the surge would not significantly reduce violence in Iraq. But after the surge did just that, Obama claimed always to have known that the insertion of additional troops would reduce violence. And weeks after advocating that we maintain a special strike force in Iraq following the completion of our general troop withdrawal, Obama denied having taken this position.

These sorts of false statements aren't in Obama's interest. The public has come to expect a certain amount of inconsistency in the positions politicians take. But surely it still expects politicians to speak truthfully about what positions they have taken. By not doing so, Obama left himself open, in the YouTube age, to the kind of attack ad the McCain campaign recently produced.

But if Obama believes deep-down in his own infallibility, then it's almost inevitable that when he's speaking he will tend to deny having taken a position that proved to be wrong, or even that proved to be impolitic. And if he believes deep-down in his omniscience, then perhaps it is not mere cynicism that lies behind his claim to be post-partisan, or to have comprehended and absorbed the essence of the conservative position on this or that issue (e.g., gun control, deregulation, faith based initiatives)

It's been reported that before his speech to the Democratic convention in 2004, Obama was pacing (strutting?) around comparing himself to Michael Jordan. If Obama feels Jordanesque when he's speaking, then perhaps the only test he's able to apply to his utterances is how mighty or grandiose they make him sound. On the basketball court, Jordan unconsciously took on the law of gravity. At the podium Obama unconsciously takes on the law of contradiction.

To comment on this post go here.

The dam that global warming zealots have erected to keep out criticism of their theory is giving way. The American Physical Society, which represents around 50,000 physicists, has retreated from its past position that anthropogenic global warming is "incontrovertible" and has now acknowledged that "[t]here is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably...primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution." The APS has now opened a debate on global warming in its journal Physics & Society.

One of the two initial contributions published by P&S is by Viscount Monckton, who wrote in an email to DailyTech:

"I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."

According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Most people do not realize that the U.N.'s IPCC report was a political document, not a scientific one. As such, it explicitly refused to consider any of the recent scientific work on carbon dioxide and the earth's climate. That work seems to show rather definitively that human activity has little to do with climate change, which has occurred constantly for millions of years.

This would be an appropriate occasion for John McCain to announce that, in view of the fact that the claim of a scientific "consensus" has now unraveled, he is rethinking his own position on the regulation of carbon emissions.

To comment on this post go here.

In February reader Doug Ross alerted us to the video above. It might fairly be described as stating the Obama plan to disarm America. In the video Obama pronounces a McGovernite credo like a catechism:

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems...

...I will not weaponize space...

...I will slow development of future combat systems...

...and I will institute a "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending...

...I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons...

...and to seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons...

...I will seek a global ban on the development of fissile material...

...and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert...

...and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals...

The YouTube post of the video does not identify the source. It is somewhat surprising that Obama has not so far as I know been asked about it. It is a perfect companion to the excerpt of Obama's July 2 Colorado Springs speech discussed below in "Obama's dangerous fantasy."

To comment on this post go here.

In a long career now spanning some firty years, Dion Dimucci (of Dion and the Belmonts, above with Bo Diddley) has experienced many ups and downs. Through it all, he has maintained a rare purity in his work. At every stage of his career you can hear the blues coming through.

In 2003 Dion appeared as part of an oldies show at the Iowa State Fair, a show that I am reliably informed was pathetic until Dion took the stage. My informant described Dion as sounding vocally closer in age to 16 than 64, as he was then, and commented that he was superb.

The musical highlight of his Iowa State Fair show was introduced by Dion's 9/11-related comments, comments from the perspective of a native New Yorker. He spoke of the guys who died because their jobs had called them that day. He said that many of them had learned about duty and doing the right thing as he had in parochial school. Then Dion gave a stirring performance of his comeback hit "Abraham, Martin and John" -- one of the few topical songs he has ever recorded. The song's message --"They freed a lot of people, but it seems the good die young" -- was one with which few would argue, and it soothed many souls in 1968.

The only other "message song" I know in Dion's catalogue apart from his 1980's work in gospel music is "Your Own Backyard" from 1970, a harrowing account of his own nasty battles with alcohol and heroin:

My idea of having a good time
Was sitting with my head in between my knees.
I knew everything there was to know --
Everything except which way to go.
I cried, "Oh, God, take me will you please?"

A little further along in the song he adds: "I can't tell nobody how to live their life." He concludes: "It's gotta start right in your own backyard."

In 2006 Dion stripped down his sound for "Bronx in Blue," a recording of blues songs (mostly classics, though Dion wrote two that fit right in). Dion accompanied himself handsomely on guitar and has never sounded better. He performs the difficult task of making these songs utterly his own. Writing about the disc, Dion revealed the secret of his access to what Gram Parsons called the Cosmic American Music:

Some people think I grew up on Rock & Roll (not so). When I was a kid, there was no Rock & Roll. In the early Fifties – late at night, I’d tune into some southern radio station that somehow reached the Bronx, listening to The Blues, Howling Wolf’s How Many More Years, Jimmy Reed’s Bright Lights, Big City.

After school, I’d run home to catch the last half hour of the "Don Larkin Country Show" comin’ out of Newark, New Jersey. I was a Hank Williams junkie. For me, putting country and blues together, that’s what I call Rock & Roll.

Black music, filtered through an Italian neighborhood, comes out with an attitude. Rock & Roll. Yo! The music on this CD was the undercurrent of every song I did: Runaround Sue, The Wanderer, even the foot stomping on Ruby Baby I got from John Lee Hooker’s Walkin’ Boogie.

Late last year Dion revisited the same territory with that certain attitude on "The Son of Skip James." Catching up with Dion's tour supporting "Bronx in Blue" a few days before Dion's birthday in 2006, reader Edward Van Bomel noted the highlight toward the end of the show:

Dion told the audience “I recorded this song in 1968.” In anticipation and appreciation of Dick Holler’s "Abraham, Martin & John" the audience applause began...causing Dion to interrupt the audience and applause for the only time of the night: "I’d like to dedicate this song to the most wonderful, brave, heroic, outstanding military people protecting our country.”

Today Dion turns 69. He's an American classic with a voice crying to be heard.

To comment on this post go here.

Decades ago, when Paul and I were college friends and roommates, he was the first person I ever heard rip the New York Times. Not because he was a conservative; we were both Commies, more or less, at the time. But Paul, who was then a fan of the Washington Post, thought that the Times was grossly overrated. Among other things, he pointed out that the Times had the worst sports section of any newspaper in America.

Which brings me to today's NY Times corrections section, which contains this remarkable entry:

Because of an editing error, the baseball standings on Wednesday listed the Yankees twice. They remain where they have always been, in the American League — not also in the National.

It was an "editing error," which means that some editor changed "Mets" to "Yankees" in the National League East standings. Which is more likely, that the editor is a fanatical Yankees fan who did it in a fit of anti-Mets loyalty, or that he didn't know that there are two baseball teams in New York? I suspect the latter: it's sort of like how the paper's news staff hasn't figured out that America has two political parties.

To comment on this post go here.

According to this report on WorldNetDaily, Barack Obama delivered a speech in which he said:

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

The speech took place in Colorado Springs on July 2. Press accounts of the speech did not include this startling remark, perhaps because it was not contained in the prepared text that the campaign distributed. But this YouTube of the event does (the quote comes between minute 16 and minute 17):

Hugh Hewitt views this as Obama's latest "pratfall" and a sign of his inexperience. Ed Morrissey finds Obama's meaning to be unclear and calls for an explanation. Both, I think, underestimate the sinister quality of Obama's comment, the meaning of which seems clear enough.

I'm not suggesting that Obama would actually try to establish a domestic security force as powerful as our current military, only that deep-down it appears he wouldl like to do something of the kind. That impulse seems like a threat to our freedom regardless of whether Obama attempts to hatch the full-blown object of his fantasy.

UPDATE: Obama's "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our military reminds of the " mammoth. . .military" force that Obama's friend a fomer adviser Samantha Power wanted to inject into territory controlled by Israel.

Liberals aren't less militaristic than the rest of us. They just differ as to who it is that needs to be confronted by our forces.

To comment on this post go here.

Barack Obama is a politician who doesn't seem to care much about any of the issues. He is a pure political machine, devoted to fundraising, the media spotlight, and personal ambition. Like Bill Clinton, as someone said, without the girlfriends. Only more cold-blooded.

If the early Obama--Obama 1.0--had a signature issue, it was Iraq. But those days are long gone. The McCain campaign has dug through the archives and done an admirable job of tracing Obama's unacknowledged contradictions on the issue:

To comment on this post go here.

Three polls taken in June showed Barack Obama running even with John McCain in Virginia. No Democratic presidential candidate has carried Virginia since Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

Obama's internal polling must also show Virginia to be close because the Obama campaign is adding 20 new offices in the state, bringing the total to 30. McCain, by contrast, has five offices. Part of the drive to open offices may be a function of the sheer number of Obama's volunteers in the state. It's said that he has 10,000 of them, and they need places to hang their hats.

Naturally, Obama is focusing on vote-rich and fertile Northern Virginia. But he is also opening offices in unfriendly territory, such as Lynchburg in the south and Harrisonburg in the west. I doubt that there will be much bang for the buck in these parts. Recall that Obama had plenty of offices in some of the states he lost decisively to Hillary Clinton during the primary season. And David "Mudcat" Sanders, a savvy Democratic strategist in Roanoke says that Obama is doing badly in his neck of the woods. But if Virginia is going to be close, then it makes sense to scrap for votes everywhere, provided the campaign has the resources. Apparently it has them.

I once thought that Obama's efforts in Virginia might be intended merely to force McCain to devote resources to a state Republicans must win. But now it seems clear that Obama is playing to win.

To comment on this post go here.

Last night John wrote about the murderous gang assault on a father who was protecting his 12-year-old daughter as the family was leaving the grounds of the Valleyfair amusement park in Shakopee, Minnesota. The assailants knocked the girl's father to the ground and took turns stomping on his head.

The Star Tribune has no follow-up story in today's paper or online tonight. Instead of more information on the story, the Star Tribune provides an editorial instructing us in the appropriate attitude to take in connection with the assault:

Six young men and one juvenile are accused of taking turns kicking the victim in the head until he was unconscious. The group jumped him after he yelled at them for groping his 12-year-old daughter. Witnesses said some of the attackers punched others randomly as they left the park.

In the big picture, such brutal attacks are relatively rare. Still, that is small consolation to citizens who feel barraged by stories about beaten bus drivers, random shootings and people killed or injured in their homes.

The seven now charged with the vicious assault include one 14-year-old boy and men ranging in age from 18 to 22. All of the accused are African-American.

Thinking people know better, but when blacks commit violent crime, some will predictably use the incident to reinforce their racist views and indict all young black people. Witness the nasty exchanges on talk radio and online comment forums.

But race-based ranting won't solve the problem. Nor will knee-jerk, overly aggressive policing. Increased security at Valleyfair or any other public place should not result in sweeps of black youth just because they're black, or wearing baggy britches and oversized T-shirts.

Youth violence is a major issue for our society, and it transcends questions of race and class. The recent "mean girls" YouTube video demonstrated that young people of various races are savagely beating their peers and recording it for their 15 minutes of fame on the Internet.

Certainly part of the answer lies in law enforcement and the courts, which must do their parts to get the most violent off the streets and deliver swift and just punishment. We wonder, for example, why some of the accused in the Valleyfair incident weren't in jail for previous offenses.

Government and schools can also be part of the solution. At the national NAACP conference this week, presidential candidate Barack Obama repeated his call for increased funding for education, health and antipoverty efforts. And he challenged the black community itself to do more.

"Yes, we have to demand more responsibility from Washington," Obama said. "And yes, we have to demand more responsibility from Wall Street. But we also have to demand more from ourselves.'' That's a call to improve parenting and to support and expand groups like 100 African-American men, MAD DADS and Big Brothers -- organizations that help steer black youth away from violence.

We share the anger and outrage caused by bands of young thugs. No family should have to endure the loss or injury of a loved one in this way. Yet in the search for solutions care must be taken to properly punish offenders and address the root causes of violence -- without giving in to fear, ignorance and racism.

Root causes! The Star Tribune is stuck in a sixties time warp. Yes, with a black man on the verge of election to the presidency of the United States, one could easily forget that not all black men threaten bloody mayhem or, in the words of the Star Tribune, "youth violence." (Never mind that six of the seven defendants charged are adults. The wise men of the Star Tribune have a hard time concentrating.)

The Star Tribune has made a valuable contribution to the public discourse with an editorial that peddles liberal bromides on crime at the same time as it promotes Barack Obama. Very efficient. It's important to retain a good attitude all the way around. We get the point. Nevertheless, some day the Star Tribune may even get around to mentioning the racial disparities involved in the commission of violent crime.

In one story reporting the assault earlier this week, the Star Tribune provided the names of those charged with the assault: Devondre Evans-Lewis, Andrew Shannon, Darris Evans, Terry Arnold, Derry Evans and Anthony Gildersleeve. Those with a sharp eye for pattern recognition may note that Evans is the lowest common denominator of the names. Several of the defendants appear to be relatives. They were on a family outing of their own.

The Star Tribune has omitted to report any information on the criminal records of those charged since they were first identified. Easily accessible court records provide information that would certainly be of interest to many readers. To take one example, Derry Evans has a long record of criminal charges and convictions including aggravated robbery. To take another example, Terry Laron Arnold (the Terry Arnold involved here, according to this local report, mug shot above) was convicted earlier this year of promoting prostitution.

Coincidentally or not, the Evans family is one of Minnesota's most notorious criminal gangs. A large contingent of the Evans family gang was indicted in St. Louis federal district court in 1999 for operating a juvenile prostitution ring. Twelve of the defendants charged pled guilty and six were convicted at trial. According to a contemporaneous account, twelve of the indicted were members of the Evans family, all from the Minneapolis area.

Does the Valleyfair rampage involve members of the younger generation of the Evans family? Reader Joel Rosenberg writes:

There's at least some reason to believe that the, err, Young Minnesotans Whose Needs Must Now Be Addressed from the Valleyfair thing, may be related to the very famous Evanses, of the Evans family prostitution ring. Which would explain the pimping conviction, the being at Valleyfair, the grabbing onto a young girl, and the being out on bail quicker 'n hell.

Wouldn't it be nice, he said, if there was some enterprise in the Twin Cities area whose business it was to research matters of interest to the public, write up and edit reports on such, and print such things on inexpensive paper that could be sold in newsstands?

I know, instead we've got the Strib.

We shall see.

To comment on this post go here.

As we noted here, Senator John Cornyn is carrying on a discussion of energy policy on his web site this week. Yesterday, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin chipped in with a plea to open up ANWR for exploration and development. Some excerpts:

[T]he debate about energy policy is no longer theoretical or abstract. Our failure to enact an energy policy is having real consequences for every American in their daily lives and has begun to affect America's place in the world. Alaska is ready, willing, and able to assist the nation in addressing our acute and expanding energy needs. Like many other states, we would like the opportunity to help.

Congressional approval of responsible petroleum development in the coastal plain of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) - the most promising unexplored petroleum province in North America - would be of incalculable benefit to my state and our nation.

As this is written, the Alaska Legislature is considering proposals to commercialize and transport the vast quantities of clean-burning natural gas that are located on the North Slope.

Already, 32 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves have been identified, and many trillions of additional cubic feet are thought to exist on the North Slope and in off shore areas of Alaska.

The Democrats, meanwhile, are busily trying to fool the American people into believing that they are doing something about high gasoline prices. Today they will bring to the floor of the House the "Drill Responsibly on Leased Land" act in order to convey the false impression that they, like a large majority of Americans, want to drill for oil and gas to meet the country's energy needs.

In fact, the Dems' cobbled-together statute won't generate a single barrel of new oil production. It contains a series of provisions that add nothing to existing law or existing energy production capabilities. The "Drill" Act would re-enact the "use it or lose it" concept that is already the law, i.e., energy leases that are not exploited within a given period of time expire. It purports to "open up" land in Alaska for oil exploration. But the land in question is NPR-A, not ANWR:

NPR-A is already open to oil exploration and development. That isn't happening, though, because the Corps of Engineers hasn't been able to get a permit to build a pipeline, and the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations have tied up proposed projects in litigation. Moreover, NPR-A is a less desirable area for exploitation than ANWR. It has about the same amount of recoverable oil, but spread out over ten times the area as ANWR's 1002. Both environmentally and economically, ANWR is a far superior place to recover oil, and it is close to the existing Alaska Pipeline. You can read about ANWR and NPR-A here.

So the Dems' proposal is a fig-leaf will do nothing to increase domestic energy supplies. It is designed purely to fool voters. Republicans offered a series of amendments in committee that actually would have allowed increased energy production, but the Democrats voted them all down.

UPDATE: The Institute for Energy Research has produced this section-by-section analysis of the "DRILL" act:

Section 1: Bill Title

Ø The Act has been dubbed the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands – or DRILL - Act of 2008. However, nothing in its following sections will increase domestic energy production beyond what is already scheduled.

Section 2. Lease Sales in the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska

Ø This section requires that lease sales be conducted once a year. This is something that is currently allowed, but not done because NPRA’s Indiana-sized area has no infrastructure. In addition, a history of dilatory lawsuits has made it an area of limited interest to energy producers. This section also seeks to expedite permits in the NPR-A, a positive step. However, it does nothing to tackle the biggest problem with developing new energy: dilatory protests and lawsuits. Any genuine effort must involve putting a stop to the legal blocking and tackling of groups opposed to American energy production. Incidentally, Congress should address this issue nationwide.

Section 3: Pipeline Construction in the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska

Ø Pipelines in NPRA have been held up by appeals, protests and lawsuits, not energy producers.

Section 4: Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Project Facilitation

Ø This section authorizes the president to exercise authority he already has to facilitate something he is already facilitating. In short, this section achieves nothing.

Section 5: Project Labor Agreements

Ø A last minute bonus prize for organized labor, but creates no new energy whatsoever.

Section 6: Ban on Export of Alaskan Oil

Ø A nice talking point, but the United States does not export any Alaskan oil, and has not since 2000. California exports more petroleum products than Alaska.

Section 7: Issuance of New Leases

Ø This section was crafted using synonyms to restate existing laws, including:

· The Mineral Leasing Act (for onshore production), which stipulates that an oil company must have a producing well within 10 years or surrender the leases. Source: 30 U.S.C. 226(e)

· The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act: (for offshore production), which stipulates that an oil company must produce energy between 5 to 10 years (in the government’s discretion) or surrender the lease. Source: 43 U.S.C. 1337(b)

· Penalties in U.S. Code: The federal government can cancel a lease if a producer fails to live up to the terms of the lease, the law or federal regulations. Source: 30 USC 188(a) and (b) and 43 CFR 3108.3 (a) and (b).

Section 8: Fair Return on Production of Federal Oil and Gas Resources

Ø This section restates current law and practice. In fact, the government increased royalties on outer continental shelf leases by 50% last year, making it more expensive to produce energy in America.

To comment on this post go here.

Why did the government of Israel turn over four terrorists and a mass murderer for the bodies of two dead soldiers? Herb Keinon purports to explain the deal via an exploration of the Israeli national psyche. Keinon does not address the question whether Ehud Olmert and his cabinet in fact fairly represent the desires of the people of Israel in agreeing to the exchange. Do they?

It is naturally demoralizing for those with a healthy psyche to watch evil rewarded and celebrated. Are the Israelis somehow different in this respect? I doubt it. Watching the Lebanese celebrate the return of Samir Kuntar and the Hezbollah terrorists (as in the video above) is profoundly demoralizing. Ynet News editor Sharon Gilad, for example, describes her blood running cold as she watched the exchange take place. In this video former Israel Defense Minister Moshe Arens frankly condemns the exchange. Who speaks for Israel?

UPDATE: Carl in Jerusalem adds: Hezbollah mutilated the bodies of Goldwasser and Regev.

To comment on this post go here.

Yesterday was another disappointing one for Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee and for the Washington Post's Dana Milbank. The previous disappointment occurred three weeks ago when the Dems attempted to grill Vice President Cheney's top aide David Addington about war on terror detainee policy. Milbank was forced to report that the Dems barely laid a glove on Addington (Milbank chalked it up to Addington's "nastiness"). The only sound-bite to emerge from the hearing came from the reprehensible Rep. Delahunt (D-Mass.) who told Addington during the televised hearing that he was "glad [al-Qaeda] finally have a chance to see you."

Yesterday, Douglas Feith, formerly the number three man at the Pentagon, testified before the same Committee, and the ever-hopeful Milbank was present again. But alas: according to the Clown Prince, "Republicans on the committee created a diversion, and Feith escaped unscathed."

As far as I can tell, the diversion Milbank refers to was nothing more than insistence that the Committee members follow the five-minute rule for questioning. This apparently proved to be too tough for the windbag Dems some of whom, as Milbank put it, need five minutes just to clear their throats. While the members seem to have squeezed their speechs/questions into the five minutes, the witness often lacked much time to respond. In one case, according to Milbank, Feith had time for only 72 words.

Fortunately, the filibustering cross-examiners had the benefit of Feith's informative opening statement -- in the unlikely event they listened to it.

For me, Addington and Feith are heroes who helped quickly move our country into an anti-terrorism mode that minimized the likelihood of additional attacks on the homeland (of which there were none). In so doing, they probably enhanced civil liberties; a second attack would have produced enormous pressure on those rights.

That said, there are respects in which detainee policy was excessively harsh, in my view, and hearings that thoughtfully explored this subject would be beneficial. But there is no prospect for such hearings with this committee, and that's true whatever time limits (or none) are placed on the members.

Israel and Hezbollah completed their swap today. The deal, which we described here, brought Israel the bodies of two dead soldiers -- Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. In exchange Hezbollah received six terrorists previously held by Israel. Among them was Samir Kuntar who buthered the Haran family, including a four-year-old girl, in 1979. Israel also gave Hezbullah the bodies of 200 terrorists, agreed to provide Hezbullah with information on four missing Iranian "diplomats," and agreed to release an unknown number of Palestinian terrorists from prison.

As expected, the return of the murderer Kuntar was greeted in Lebanon with elation and celebration. Hezbollah and its Lebanese suporters plainly viewed the swap as a victory, and to a degree it was.

But, as Noah Pollak reports, more distressing than Hezbollah's predictable reaction was that of Lebanon’s March 14th movement. Named after the date of the Cedar Revolution, this is a coalition of anti-Syrian political parties and independents in Lebanon. Today, two of its leaders -- Fouad Siniora, the Sunni prime minister of Lebanon, and Walid Jumblatt, the leader of Lebanon’s Druze, both of whom are embraced as American allies — celebrated the return of Kuntar as a victory for all of Lebanon. Siniora had this to say:

The success of Hizbullah in the negotiations led by a third party is a national success for the party and for the struggle of the Lebanese because it secured national goals which Israel always refused to respect.

Meanwhile, Jumblatt promised that a delegation from his party would welcome and congratulate Kuntar, and called his return a “national occasion.” The government followed suit by declaring the day a national holiday. Many, including Pollak, have held out great hope for the March 14 movement. That hope now seems badly misplaced.

I'm far from an expert on Lebanon. However, it seems to me that Israel's failure to defeat Hezbollah during the war two years ago shifted the balance of power in Lebanon to the point that leaders like Siniora and Jumblatt feel constrained to follow Hezbollah's line in matters like this one and many others. If so, and after today's spectacle, Pollak seems correct to question whether it makes sense for the U.S. to consider Lebanon an ally in any meaningful sense.

Meanwhile, the man who brought Israel both the botched war and the one-sided prisoner swap, the corrupt Ehud Olmert, remains in power in Israel.

To comment on this post go here.