baldilocks

The Obama-Odinga Connection

The Kenyan media have belatedly discovered the phenomenon which I refer to as the Obama Whisper Campaign: the allegations floating around the Internet that the senator is a crypto-Muslim. The writer of the (report? op-ed?) doesn't cover any new ground on that topic. However, there are a few areas which contain information new to me.

The first concerns the relationship between Obama and Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga.

“It is true that the Prime Minister and the senator are related. Senator Obama comes from a family and clan to which the Prime Minister’s mother belongs, and they are cousins,” he said.

In the American sense, a cousin is the child of your parents’ siblings. But in Luo culture, the members of your father’s or mother’s clans are your cousins.

A clan would typically have hundreds of thousands of members, and the relationship is more social than biological. [SNIP]

The Obama campaign denies that the senator and Mr Odinga are cousins. And three Kenya experts interviewed by Politifact also dismissed this claim, Ms Hollyfield reports.

So the two might not be blood relatives.

The second issue is more interesting.

A conservative Internet commentator, Michael Gaynor, speculated earlier this month that Senator Clinton’s campaign might play “the Kenya card” against Mr Obama.

Mr Gaynor says “the Kenya card” involves unspecified connections between the Kenyan-American senator and “the radical Kenyan prime minister.”

I doubt that Senator Clinton is that short-sighted. But if she is...

Are both of the Democrat candidates so intent on gaining power that they would risk splitting this country down racial lines? Because Obama has already risked this and if Clinton were to use this tactic, the estrangement would be nearly complete.

From the Gaynor op-ed:

With exits polls showing that rookie United States Senator and now front-running Democrat presidential hopeful Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is taking more than 90% of the black vote against Hillary, will the Clintons finally play the Kenya card? [SNIP]

[S]crutiny of Obama associations came only AFTER he had become the Democrat frontrunner, too late for Team Clinton, and Team Clinton has NOT played the Kenya card to show how politically extreme Obama really is and how Obama is tied to the radical Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga (who told the BBC that he is Obama's cousin on his father's side [sic] and who ran an unsuccessful race for president of Kenya posing as an apostle of change).

Unfortunately for Team Clinton, the media has not compared and contrasted the Odinga and Obama presidential campaigns and scrutinized the Odinga-Obama connection, although it certainly should have.

Well the Big Media hasn't.

Though it pains me to admit the following, I must: one would probably have better luck finding such a compare/contrast series at blogs authored by people whom I have ridiculed for looking suspiciously at the Odinga-Obama connection. Yes, being half Luo myself, I took their suspicions personally.

I'm yet not ready to totally absolve some of them of cultural prejudice because some of them did willfully lie (absolution is not mine to give anyway), but I will apologize for being wrong if it is discovered that the Obama-Odinga relationship is more than meets the eye.

In light of sheer numbers, one might be forgiven for believing that about almost every relationship the good senator has--genetically, incidentally and purposefully.

A Parent Appearing Apparent

I love this:

With the swearing in of the new Cabinet – as [Kenya's Daily Nation] put it – the Kibaki-Odinga unity “...appeared apparent...” I was girding my loins to attack it immediately on the spot, but other more urgent issues came up.

In addition, moreover, it happened to occur to my mind that, perhaps maybe, I duly owed the writer some more thoughtful consideration. It was probably likely that, if I tried to make an effort to enter the young juvenile’s mind, I might understand him adequately enough.

But it seems evident that repeated reiteration is an incorrigibly permanent feature of our newsrooms. It seems apparent that, as writers, our scribes simply cannot be able to see that appearances are not what they look like.

It's from my father's weekly grammar column, in which he sometimes injects politics, but is primarily used to lambaste instruct his colleagues in the art of wielding English: definitions, word usage and sentence construction. Redundancies are the topic today (yes, that statement may be redundant, but someone will ask). I don't doubt that I may have committed some of the same sorts of errors, but I still find this op-ed particularly funny.

My diplomatic abilities appear to be genetically acquired.

The politics:

The Kibaki-Odinga unity is a phenomenon of such material objects. Nobody else can see it exactly for what it is. For outsiders, it only appears or seems. Some think of it as mere make-believe. They do not accept it as a reality.

But the Nation reporter was two-minded about it. On the one hand, it was apparent because it was real.

But, on the other, its “apparentness” seemed like that of the will-o’-the-wisp – which was why it appeared apparent.

Kenya Crisis

Kenya: The Basics

Hive of Scum and Villiany Plays Race Cop

File this one under jaw-dropping hubris:

GENEVA (Reuters) - A special U.N. human rights investigator will visit the United States this month to probe racism, an issue that has forced its way into the race to secure the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

The United Nations said Doudou Diene would meet federal and local officials, as well as lawmakers and judicial authorities during the May 19-June 6 visit.

"The special rapporteur will...gather first-hand information on issues related to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance," a U.N. statement said on Friday.

His three-week visit, at U.S. government invitation, will cover eight cities -- Washington D.C., New York, Chicago, Omaha, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Miami and San Juan, Puerto Rico.

I wonder who invited him.

If the UN finds racism here, what could it possibly do about it? Would such a "discovery" mean that the body will find a new country in which to locate its headquarters? Will it stop accepting our money? Quick! Send the clowns email containing all the racial epithets you can!

Maybe they'll move to Tehran or Nairobi or Moscow.

No, I don't think so either.

(Thanks to Hot Air which entitles its post on the subject thusly: Jew-haters to investigate U.S. for racism)

The Good News

Huckabee won't be getting the GOP nomination for vice president.

During a speech before the National Rifle Association convention Friday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee — who has endorsed presumptive GOP nominee John McCain — joked that an unexpected offstage noise was Democrat Barack Obama looking to avoid a gunman.

“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak,” said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”

The bad news: the idiot gives the Democrats something legitimate to complain about.

"Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler..."

It may be indicative of Barack Obama's ignorance and lack of curiosity regarding American history that he failed to capitalize on the fact that the 1930s-era US senator mentioned in President Bush's Israel speech was a Republican.

William Edgar Borah (June 29, 1865 near Fairfield, Illinois – January 19, 1940 Washington, D.C.) was a prominent Republican attorney and longtime United States Senator from Idaho noted for his oratorical skills and isolationist views. One of his nicknames later in life was "The Lion of Idaho." [snip]

Borah may be best known today for having allegedly said, in September 1939, after Germany invaded Poland, "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided."

The quote has been repeatedly cited as evidence of the alleged naivete of attempts to negotiate with one's enemies.

A less emotional and more nimble candidate would be talking about and making use of this already.

But then Obama would have to admit that the president wasn't talking about him in the first place.

UPDATE: Welcome, Lizards!

Guilty Conscious

You know, it’s almost as if seeing George Bush standing in front of Israel’s Knesset as he vowed to stand with the Jewish state has driven Barack Obama and his party backers crazy. I’d most certainly believe that the latter are crazy. However, I don’t think that crazy covers the junior senator from Illinois. He knows what he’s doing.

Barack Obama rebuked Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for "dishonest, divisive" attacks in hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists, staunchly defending his national security credentials for the general election campaign.

Obama responded Friday to Bush's speech Thursday to the Israeli Knesset. The president referred to the leader of Iran, who has called for the destruction of the U.S. ally, and then said some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals — comments Obama and Democrats said were directed at them.

McCain subsequently said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with rogue leaders. [snip]

Bush did not mention Obama by name in his speech, but Obama and other Democrats said the implication was clear.

"That's exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world," Obama said. He vowed to turn the foreign policy debate back against both Bush and McCain, rejecting the notion that Democrats critical of the war in Iraq are vulnerable to charges of being soft on terrorism.

"If they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that's a debate I'm ready to win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for," Obama said. He blamed Bush's policies for enhancing the strength of terrorist groups such as Hamas and "the fact that al-Qaida's leadership is stronger than ever because we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan," among other failings.

Ed Morrissey:

Obviously, Bush wasn’t referring to American politicians in this passage, but instead politicians in Europe and elsewhere who have either an animus towards Israel or appreciation for dhimmitude. Nothing — and I mean nothing — in this speech points to any candidate or the Democratic Party, unless they identify themselves as the reference.

And Obama even contends that Bush is to blame for the ascendancy of Al Qaeda and Hamas! (Well, I guess that if one thinks that genocide-mongers and Islam supremacists can be won over by reason, then it makes sense to shape the idea of kicking their a**ses first and talking to them later as a failing.)

Michael Goldfarb:

[F]or the record, Hamas and Hezbollah are both ascendant because Israel implemented the kind of policies that Obama advocates for this country: unilateral withdrawal in the face of terrorism. If Israel had stayed in Gaza and Southern Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah would not be in control of those respective territories. Why does Obama expect a different result when he unilaterally withdraws U.S. forces from Iraq?

And guess what? The Obama faithful will buy it just like they buy all of the other blatantly ridiculous notions and stark contradictions that come out of his mouth. He calls the tune and the believers—Democrats (langauge alert) and the senator’s adoring media--dance. Because this campaign isn't about objective Truth, but about belief and about keeping the believers riled up against the unbelievers--George Bush, John McCain, all other Republicans and those who would dispute anything that the little-m messiah says. And it's fascinating to watch the phenomenon in action.

Aside: I find it odd that Obama keeps talking about “taking our eye off the ball” in Afghanistan. Does he have something specific in mind as to what we should be doing there that we aren’t doing now? My guess is that we’ll hear more about this as soon as Obama’s campaign makes something up.

PREVIOUSLY: Obama, Bush and Preconditions

UPDATE: Bush's Covenant with Israel

As far as political reactions go, it was a weird one. President Bush gave a beautiful and moving speech in the capital of Israel to give voice to America’s solidarity with the Jewish state. He reached back to Herzl and beyond, declaring that the establishment of the State of Israel was, as the president put it, “the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people ...” “Israel’s population,” Mr. Bush said, “may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you.”

So how did the Democrats react? They seized on one fragment of Mr. Bush’s speech — “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.” And the Democrats took that language as a personal affront. [snip]

Obama has said he won’t meet with Hamas, but his promise to meet with Hamas’s masters in Tehran undermines that position, as both Senator McCain and Senator Clinton have pointed out.

Where I come from, we call this the "okey doke."

(Thanks to Powerline)

What Will the Courts Legislate Next?

Please contribute to my "escape California" fund.

Why? Because of this.

The court held that people have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice and struck down marriage laws limiting matrimony to opposite-sex couples as a violation of the state constitution's equal protection guarantees.

"One of the core elements embodied in the state constitutional right to marry is the right of an individual and a couple to have their own official family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationships of other couples," wrote Chief Justice Ronald M. George, joined by Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.

State laws that have limited gay unions to domestic partnerships "impinge upon the fundamental interests of same-sex couples," George wrote.

Back in 2000, California voters decided via Proposition 22 that the word 'marriage' applied only to legal unions between one man and one woman. The measure passed by 61%.

And it most certainly isn't the first time that a California law has been "judicially mandated." I'm seeing a pattern.

This isn't about same-sex marriage or about "discrimination" or about "equal protection," not really. It's about tyranny. Because whether you or I think that same-sex marriage is okay or not, no one's life, liberty or property is harmed or hindered by the state if the voters decide not to label as 'marriage' a legal union between two men or two women.

In contrast, life, liberty and property are very much in peril when a judicial body presumes to overrule the will of the people.

Here’s a Bear Flag League Roundup while I simmer. Some of these folks are lawyers and there are at least three to whom the subject at hand might apply.

Justin Levine

While I have no problems with the result of this decision as a matter of social policy, it remains problematic in terms of the judicial activism debate. In addition to the dissenting opinions, you might want to pay particular attention to footnote # 52 in the majority’s decision (starting on pg. 79 of the PDF document) which underscores the problem. Ironically, the majority doesn’t seem to grasp the obvious contradictions and tensions in their reasoning that footnote 52 presents. Merely citing past court decisions is not a valid substitute for reasoning in this instance, nor is it adequate to explain the blatant double standards in social policy (beyond the personal whims and political preferences of the Justices).

Tammy Bruce

When Robert Mugabe nullifies an election in Zimbabwe, we cry out in pious indignation. But when it happens here, our tyrants are toasted as enlightened liberators.

Boi from Troi

This summer, gays and lesbians will be coming to California to gain legal recognition of their relationships just as they did on Valentine’s weekend 2004 when San Francisco issued same-sex marriage licenses. And like that romantic weekend get-away, they had better make plans fast.

The Foothill Cities Blog

Flap’s Dental Blog

Daniel Blatt (and here)

I disagree with this ruling because I believe the decisions the Court made better belong with the legislature and/or the people.

Holy Coast

Had the voters been in favor of gay marriage by 61%, I wouldn't have liked it but would have accepted it because that was the will of the voters. If I couldn't live with that decision, I could move to a state that hadn't gone so far down the liberal craphole. However, the voters of California overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage, but because that decision was politically incorrect, the left feels they have a right to use only 4 judges to impose something on Californians that they clearly did not want.

Infinite Monkeys

Come November, there will likely be a proposition on the ballot to insert into the California Constitution the legal definition of "marriage" as between only a man and a woman. So maybe all this will be moot by 2009 -- unless, of course, the court doubles down by later declaring even amendments to the state constitution unconstitutional. From this absurd court? I expect it.

Lex Communis

First, why not polygamy? Why is "two" a "magic number"? Could it be because we have two arms? Could it be because we have two eyes?

Or could it be because there are two sexes, and now that the idea that the complementarity of the different genders is now considered outmoded and irrelevant, why should "two" be a limitation any more than the idea that a "man" and a "woman" constitute a married couple?

Little Miss Attila

Mayor Sam

McGehee

Apparently four out of seven California supreme court justices drive a Fiat.

Red County

Presto Pundit

Hugh Hewitt

The central question was whether the representative nature of the California state government, including its initiative provisions, would be upheld. They were not. The California Supreme Court asserted its ultimate power today in a way that is shameful and deeply destructive of the ability of a free people to govern themselves.

SoCal Pundit

The Right Coast

Not Too Proud

China asks for earthquake rescue/recovery resource help. In response, individuals and nations mobilize. Examples:
Russia, Japan and Taiwan:

A 60-member Japanese rescue team arrived in Beijing late yesterday and is expected in the quake region early tomorrow, Xinhua said. A chartered freight flight from Taiwan arrived at the hard-hit city of Chengdu, the provincial capital, loaded with blankets, tents and clothes.

Russian planes delivered aid to the quake area, and China agreed to accept rescuers and medics from its northern neighbor, Xinhua said, quoting a Russian Emergency Ministry statement distributed by the Russian news agency Interfax.

Thailand:

BANGKOK, May 15 (Xinhua) -- Thailand's Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn on Thursday made a personal donation of 100,000 RMB (some 14,286 U.S. dollars) in cash to help disaster relief in China after a strong earthquake hit the southwestern province of Sichuan.

Earlier on the day, representatives of the Thai Red Cross Society and the Chaipattana Foundation under royal patronage, also passed on a donation of 200,000 U.S. dollars to China Red Cross Society.

Cambodia:

PHNOM PENH, May 14 (Xinhua) -- The Cambodian Red Cross here on Wednesday donated 10,000 U.S. dollars through the Chinese Embassy to the Red Cross Society of China to facilitate its humanitarian activities for the earthquake-affected areas in China.

"We, therefore, would like to ask your kindness in conveying the message of condolence to the families of the dead and our sharing of the hardships and difficulties being struggled over by the survivors and the rescuers," said Bun Rany, president of the Cambodian Red Cross, in a letter to Peng Peiyun, president of the Red Cross Society of China.

Phoenix, AZ, USA:

[American college student Carlos Hernandez and] hundreds of others who had traveled from Phoenix to Chengdu as part of sister city exchanges – from students and teachers to firefighters, police officers, and judges – awakened with the same reaction. They immediately reached out to their friends and counterparts in Sichuan Province's capital, a city of some 11 million people located 60 miles from the epicenter of Monday's earthquake. The confirmed death toll in the region reached 19,509 Thursday, and China said the number could rise to 50,000 once all the missing are accounted for.

Phoenix Sister City officials swung into action, setting up a Chengdu Earthquake Relief Fund to accept cash donations. They sent a group member to China on Wednesday to meet with counterparts in Chengdu and set up a bank account where the funds collected in Phoenix can be transferred to help the local population.

Canada:

Canadians have donated $80,000 [to the IRC] so far for relief efforts.

The Nova Scotia branch of the Chinese Benevolent Association of Canada will also take donations on Sunday. Members will be touring some of Halifax’s cemeteries, visiting their ancestors’ graves. The association will ask for donations at the end of the tour, when the group meets at Dragon Buffet King in Bayers Lake Business Park at about 1 p.m.

Meanwhile the UN finds itself in a quandary: what should it do if a nation refuses most disaster aid and--like Myanmar and unlike China--isn't mostly up to taking care of itself.

Myanmar's isolated military regime is still allowing only a "trickle" of aid and a few international aid workers into the country, the U.N. said Tuesday, reaching about a quarter of the 1.5 million people affected by the recent cyclone that killed more than 34,000 people. Meanwhile, China has welcomed foreign money and supplies, but not international rescue teams, to help survivors of the earthquake that has killed more than 12,000.

The LA Times staff writer couldn't resist rolling in this little moral equivalence grenade:

Rejection of outside aid by governments in times of crisis is not unprecedented. India did so after the 2004 tsunami, China after floods last year and after the 1976 Tangshan earthquake that took more than 240,000 lives. The United States also turned down offers of help from the U.N. and other nations after Hurricane Katrina. Such decisions are generally made out of national pride and in efforts by governments to demonstrate their capability to care for their own people.

Because it's only "national pride" which would cause a self-sufficient nation to refuse aid which could be better utilized by more needy nations.

Anyway, some have suggested that the UN should airdrop the aid anyway. The French foreign minister rightly called Myanmar's response to the cyclone aftermath "a crime against humanity." But as with other such governmental abuses of citizens, the UN remains prone. To be honest, though, I'm not sure how the body should respond otherwise, at least in this case.

Obama, Bush and Preconditions

President Bush has been in Israel this week to celebrate the 60th anniversary of our ally's modern and often perilous existence. One of the nations which has continued to threaten Israel’s existence is, of course, Iran. And as we know, Iran has a nuclear weapons program and is a state sponsor of terrorism. Speaking to the subject of negotiating with terrorists before Israel's Knesset, here's the president today:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush told the Israeli lawmakers. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

No biggie, right? We all know this history--well some of us do. Do you think Barack Obama does? Because for some reason, he took swift and immediate exception to this statement.

It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack,” he said in a statement. “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino denies that the statement was in reference to the senator and takes a smack at him as well:

I understand when you’re running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you -- that is not always true and it is not true in this case.

Just so.

Obama also claims that Bush’s Secretary of Defense Robert Gates agrees with him with regard to talking to Iran. But does he? Here is yesterday’s statement on the matter from Gates:

We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."

In the meantime, Gates told a meeting of the Academy of American Diplomacy, a group of retired diplomats, "my personal view would be we ought to look for ways outside of government to open up the channels and get more of a flow of people back and forth." Noting that "a fair number" of Iranians regularly visit the United States, he said, "We ought to increase the flow the other way . . . of Americans" visiting Iran. [SNIP]

The Bush administration has said it will talk with Iran, and consider lifting economic and other sanctions, only if Iran ends a uranium enrichment program the administration maintains is intended to produce nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies. Although the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors to Baghdad met three times last year for discussions on Iraq, Iran has refused to continue that dialogue.

And let’s remember what is on Obama’s campaign site regarding his plans for Iran:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

(All emphasis mine.)

Does Senator Obama know what a precondition is? Because he seems to be taking two different, mutually exclusive positions regarding diplomacy with Iran. And that's what's causing yet another problem with attempts to pin him down on policy--a symptom, no doubt, of his chronic double-think.

The senator might want to do a little site clean-up. He also may want to stop whining and remember that Israel has terrorist problems apart from the Iranians and that the president may have this and other things on his mind.

Pins and Crosses (UPDATED: A Counter to the Muslim Rumors?)

Barack Obama has picked up a couple of previously disdained (non-human) tools to wield in the home stretch of the Democrat primaries: flag pins and crosses. (At first, I wondered why he's even bothering. Then I realized that this Christian- and patriot-pandering is for the general election.)

The flag pins came first--in spite of Obama’s affirmatively-expressed decision not to wear one.

The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism.

Was the reversal cynically made with the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries in mind? Many observers think so, including this one. And it appears that the senator isn’t even trying to hide this.

Nonetheless, in WV, Hillary Clinton beat Obama like…

(A red-headed stepchild?
A runaway slave?

Feel free to suggest any other inflammatory metaphors I can use here.)

Anyway, Clinton beat Obama in the WV primary by 41 percentage points. So Obama brings out the big “gun.”

No subliminal seduction here, as was alleged about that silly Mike Huckabee ad; Obama is overt in his product placement. But will his Leftist constituency cry out in protest at this blatant “Christianism?”

We’ll see.

Look, if Obama wants to use Jesus as a campaign tool, that’s between him and Jesus but could we not pretend that this usage isn't a mere ploy to garner the votes of those in Kentucky who haven’t been paying attention to the senator’s Wright/Black Liberation Theology connections?

The caption reads: “My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I go out and do the Lord’s work.”

Well I guess that depends on who your lord is.

(Thanks to Ed Morrissey and to Memeorandum)

UPDATE: Obama used the Cross tactic in South Carolina. Was it a counter to the Muslim Whisper campaign?

(Thanks to Protein Wisdom)

World is Crazy (UPDATED: Lebanon)

I’ll be away from the computer this morning, but I’m thinking about war, disaster, famine and pestilence and I’m praying. And, no, I'm not trying to depress you but remind you of our blessings.

India: Terror attack in Jaipur, 30 dead and rising.

Myanmar: The country’s junta has allowed the US deliver disaster aid and the UN has resumed its assistance efforts, but with the food delivered being of good quality and slow perishability, the junta still hoards it and gives out spoiling food to its dying population.

China: A couple of days ago, a 7.9 earthquake shook the city of Dujiangyan and the death toll is past 12,000 and rising. China's disaster prep seems to be better than that of Myanmar's; it's the decrepit architecture that's yielded the high death toll.

US: Tornadoes run from Oklahoma to Georgia, bringing the 2008 toll to 100. Lesson learned here: don’t get in your car when a tornado hits.

American Red Cross

International Red Cross

PREVIOUSLY:

Behaving Like Dictators
Myanmar Cyclone

UPDATE: In the comments, Martn Bebow says:

You forgot the civil war going on in Lebanon.

I did. It's falling to Hezbollah.

Good Old Days

Here's a Smothers Brothers clip. Move the cursor up to 3:45 and listen to the "Anthropologist Song" all the way through. Just do it.

LOLable but you know they would have been toast had it been 2008.

(Thanks to Krazy Ken)

UPDATE: Once upon a time one member of the sixties equivalent of the Dixie Chicks tangled with Bill Cosby.

I was wondering whether the two were still alive. They are and are still touring. Interesting fact: their father, Major Thomas Smothers, Sr., was a West Point graduate who died as a POW while experiencing the tender mercies of the Japanese. :::shudder:::

It's interesting to speculate how differently they might have turned out had their father lived.

(Thanks to reader Jim C.)

Man Cannot Live on Pride Alone

Columnist Susan Estrich who worked for the spectacularly abortive 1988 presidential campaign of Governor Michael Dukakis (D-MA) rhetorically asks whether Barack Obama could be another Dukakis, then answers ‘no.’

[T]he most important difference between Obama and Dukakis has absolutely nothing to do with the two men, or their primary opponents, or the issues that did or did not get raised. It’s the difference between where the country was then, and where it is now. In June 1988, a majority of Americans thought the country was on the right track. Although the wrong track numbers had been higher earlier in the year, by the summer they turned around. Americans were pleased with the direction of the country. Today, the equivalent numbers are 80% wrong track. Ask any pollster and they’ll tell you that there is no better indication of which party will win an election than the right track-wrong track numbers. This should be a Democratic year. Obama, if he is the candidate, will face a negative machine. But in the end, that machine cannot change the way people feel about the direction the country is heading, or the party that is responsible for it.

There's much, much more to the differences than this.

I mean, come on. Dukakis had the Willie Horton issue.

Obama has…

• Jeremiah Wright
• Black Liberation Theology
• Michelle Obama’s attitude toward America
• William Ayers (Who?)
• Tony Resko (Who?)
• The Bitter, Clingy-ness of White People
• The Ignorance of American Presidential History and how such have deal with enemies
• The NAFTA oddity: being against it while being for it
• The Hamas connections
• The Commie connections

And...

• The possible Islam connections (Yes, I’m willing to allow a crack into my “no way has Obama been a Muslim” edifice, though I still scoff at the idea that Obama was, in some way involved in the Kenya crisis merely because of his blood relationship with (now) Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga.) The alleged connections are interesting in light of
• The 57 states gaffe

"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."

This one is extremely weird, until it is considered that there are 57 nation-states in the Organization of Islamic Conference.*

And there are probably all sorts of things that I'm forgetting or don't feel like looking up.

The answer to Estrich’s question is indeed ‘no,’ but not because of perceptions regarding the "direction of the nation." If that were so, Hillary Clinton would have won the nomination by now.

Look. The sheer weight of the baggage which Obama carries along with his chronic trifling dwarf Dukakis’s issues and should have been enough to sink his campaign months ago. But it hasn’t been. And that's because Obama has something which Dukakis doesn’t have--brown skin. But consider this: the fact that his skin color is what's keeping him comfortably afloat isn’t a mere indictment of racism against those who still want Obama to be president while being aware of all of the above listed short-comings--at least it's not an indictment from me.

And consider this: Obama's brown skin is a symbol, one which has been planted into the minds of the unguarded; one which takes the place of rational-thinking and long-term planning (assuming that either or both ever had a place); one which plays on a singular emotion. That emotion is called pride.

A brown-skinned POTUS, especially one of African descent, would be the crowning achievement for an America which prides itself in being the beacon to the world, one of equal opportunity for all comers of whatever color or background. And it would indeed be a breakthrough. Oh sure we can truthfully say that this is the greatest nation on Earth, but if we had a black president, Holy Cow! We can thumb our nose at the nay-sayers with abandon.

For a little while. And then such symbolism’s value would recede and the value of the individual man—the content of his character, judgment, alliances and allegiances—would come to the fore. A country cannot survive on pride and symbolism at the expense of substance; at the expense of the well-being of this nation. And that’s what I and many others are afraid of.

There, I said it. I am afraid; for my country and my countrymen of all colors, but, most especially for my fellow black Americans. Because, while there are still a few people out there who believe in treating all others as individuals, there are not as many as I hoped, even on the Right. And, to be realistic, why should anyone extend the benefit of the doubt to a black American with regard to individualism when we all know that over 90% of black Americans will vote for Obama in the general election? (Yeah, I'm flip-flopping here. Sorta.)

If most black Americans aren't selling individualism, then how can our countrymen buy it? Then, when it becomes apparent that Obama is, at best, woefully under-qualified to be president, who will be blamed?

Live by the pride and the Group Identity Politics...

*(From my comments): Even I have a limit as to how many things--large and trivial--can be just a little bit off or greatly askew about one person before I cry "all foul." I guess Mr. Obama has reached it.

And something tells me that he isn't finished by a long shot.

The Miseducation of a Future President, Part II (UPDATE: Obama Tries the Jedi Mind Trick. Again.)

It turns out that Barack Obama did make the mistake I feared regarding his characterization of the 1945 Yalta meetings between US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill and USSR President Josef Stalin.

I think people understand the notion of talking to our enemies," Obama said. "If FDR can meet with Stalin and Nixon can meet with Mao and Kennedy can meet with Khrushchev and Reagan can meet with Gorbachev, then the notion that we can't meet with some half-baked dictator [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] is ridiculous.

Tom Maguire:

Well, Stalin was a fully-baked dictator, but he was also our ally against Nazi Germany when he met with Roosevelt. [SNIP]

Think about this - the probable next President of the United States does not know even the broad outlines of the history of American foreign policy from WWII forward and does not know the history of Democratic icons Roosevelt or Truman.

Three things:

1. FDR was in his grave long before Stalin’s USSR became a full blown enemy.
2. Nixon’s meeting with Mao is the exception that proves the rule, but produced the aphorism “only Nixon could go to China” due to Nixon coming into the meeting from a position of strength rather than of supplication. And Nixon’s homework for the trip started well in advance of his second presidential candidacy. (The first was in 1960.)
3. Mikhail Gorbachev was taking affirmative steps to reduce antagonism with the West--not threatening to “bury us” or one of our allies. (Does Obama not remember when the Russian words glasnost’ and perestroika entered the American lexicon? He should remember the latter word since one of its English definitions is 'reorientation'--or, more simply, 'Change.')

Not knowing world history is one thing; not knowing the history of your own country is another; but not knowing presidential foreign relations history when one has a flocking degree in political science with a specialization in international relations from Columbia University and is running for president is a frightening issue. (A commenter to Burt Prelutsky’s observations regarding Ivy League presidents reminds us that, during the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination controversy, some pundits contended that Miers wasn’t qualified to sit on the USSC because she did not attend an Ivy League law school. But, perhaps at least one Ivy League institution should be concerned about one of its more basic programs.)

Unfortunately, Obama’s ignorance of his own field takes its place in a long line of frightening issues regarding the man behind whom the Democrats are uniting to become our 44th president.

(Thanks to Instapundit)

UPDATE: Now Obama campaign says that he never claimed to want to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions being on the table.

Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

However, LGF finds yet more evidence that the senator says whatever is expedient at a given point in time even if it is 180 degrees contradictory to something he has said earlier. From the CFR debate last year:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.

This is becoming tiresome.

UPDATE: Screen Capture from BarackObama.com (click on it to see full version):

First line:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

Do you get the feeling that my kinsman is making it up as he goes along?

My fellow Americans, especially black ones: is our pride at having the first black American president--even one who comes along and says anything--worth risking our nation's existence over? Because that's what's at stake. Our enemies smell this weakness.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

The Miseducation of a Future President (UPDATED)

Jack Kelly gives Barack Obama a history lesson in the wake of the senator's remark regarding non-ordnance communication with America's enemies :

I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.

Kelly points out the obvious

That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit.

and then goes on to remind us that neither FDR nor Truman met with the leaders of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy or Imperial Japan before the United States' entrance into World War II (or at all), that Truman had to use "non-verbal communication" to convince Japan to surrender and that Truman did not meet with North Korea's Kim Il-Sung before the outbreak of the Korean War. Even more interesting is that Kelly points out that while Senator Obama is correct that JFK met with our enemies (USSR's Khrushchev) before the outbreak of a Hot War, that it was the meeting and JFK's flighty persona which probably caused the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.

"There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy's measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions," Mr. Abel wrote. "There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America's power. He questioned only the president's readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are 'too liberal to fight.'"

That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: "Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs," Mr. Reston wrote. "He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed."

But another supposition which Kelly makes is that, perhaps, Senator Obama is thinking of Josef Stalin's meetings with both FDR and Winston Churchill, most famously at Yalta.

But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.

The thought that Obama might have made this particular mistake is jaw-dropping.

This sort of history is old hat for me since I lived in the midst of its aftermath and I don't get surprised (anymore) or think less of the average person when he/she demonstrates a lack in this area of factual knowledge. Public schools have sucked for a long time; therefore anyone so educated and who is interested in this area of history--or most others--has to actively seek out the knowledge for self.

But didn't Senator Obama attend private secondary schools during the American portion of his education? And, in order to receive an undergraduate degree from Ivy-covered Columbia University in political science with a specialization in international relations, aren't scholars of that august institution required to take a US history class or two? (Heck, one would think that even Leftists and Socialists would attain at least a working knowledge of the history of the countries which are/were their ideology made flesh--the late USSR, especially the Stalinist version, and North Korea.)

The Cold War--under whose heading the Korean War and the Cuban Missile Crisis fall--was a direct result of World War II. Both wars were actively engaged in by the US. As I said, I make allowance for the average Joe's lack of knowledge there. But when a highly and "well" educated person says that he wants to be president but doesn't know these bare bones of recent US history I have to take a step back.

And this guy will be the Democrat nominee.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey was on this op-ed before I was--hey, he gets up earlier--and notes the Chamberlain similarities. (Note: not Wilt.)

Obama isn’t merely saying that he’ll reinstitute diplomatic relations with Iran, which would emulate our relations with the Nazis and the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor. Obama wants to have meetings without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has publicly spoken of his desire to annihilate a key ally of the US, as well as Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and any number of thugs and tyrants. When did FDR, Truman, and Kennedy do that? Answer: never.

BTW, one wonders whether the good senator remembers why we have no diplomatic relations with Iran.

1979. Hmmm...who was president then and will the good senator follow his lead?

Behaving Like Dictators

Myanmar's military junta has appropriated the UN's first shipments of relief supplies which were destined to feed the survivors of a cyclone that has killed over 60,000 and which could kill more than 100,000 due to disease and starvation--issues that are sure to be exacerbated by the seizure.

The U.N. said the aid included 38 tons of high-energy biscuits and arrived in Myanmar on Friday on two flights from Bangladesh and the United Arab Emirates.

"All of the food aid and equipment that we managed to get in has been confiscated," U.N. World Food Program spokesman Paul Risley said. "For the time being, we have no choice but to end further efforts to bring critical needed food aid into Myanmar at this time."

Myanmar's government acknowledged taking control of the shipments and said it plans to distribute the aid itself to the affected areas.

Additionally, the government won't let the US--whose relief aid resources are second to none (and spare me the Katrina myths and memes)--anywhere near the country. UN officials euphemistically characterized such decision-making steps as "unprecedented." No they're not--we've seen this before.

It's pretty easy to see why Myanmar's government wouldn't want the UN and especially the US coming to the aid of its suffering citizens. The relationship between dictators and their subject population is like that of an abusive marriage. Dictators can't be seen as impotent or powerless under any circumstances and are insanely jealous--they would rather see their people die that allow them to realize that other forms of government are infinitely better equipped to assist them in their time of dire need. And dictators have behaved this way from time immemorial.

The junta said in a statement Friday it was grateful to the international community for its assistance - which has included 11 chartered planes loaded with aid supplies - but the best way to help was just to send in material rather than personnel.

Several other countries and private agencies have been allowed to assist with supplies, but, as indicated, people are another story.

Can't have "daddy's" image ruined and dead "children" tell no tales.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

UPDATE: Welcome to Ace, Gabriel and my fellow 'Morons!'

"Change" of Power in Russia (UPDATED: Duma Vote)

Russia's new president, Dmitri Medvedev, was sworn in today, while the old one, our friend Vladimir Putin, retreats...or something...into the prime minister's slot.

It looks almost like a wedding, Massachusetts-style, no? Well if it were, there'd be little doubt as to which one was the groom.

Putin, a former KGB leader who had presided over Russia's economic revival while consolidating power, rolling back civil liberties and leading a government beset with corruption, arrived at the ceremony alone and before Medvedev.

He stepped from a black limousine and briefly stood before the ceremonial Presidential Regiment, which was standing outside in the chill. "Greetings, comrades!" he said, and was met with a deep, rousing cheer. [SNIP]

Putin said that he had lived up to his promise, made eight years ago, to serve the country and its citizens faithfully.

The remarks appeared to presage Putin's continued hand on Russian power. "It is extremely important for everyone together to continue the course that has already been taken and has justified itself," he said.

Only then did Medvedev, 42, approach the lectern, rest his hand on a copy of the Russian Constitution, and utter the oath of office. [SNIP]

Minutes later, Putin accompanied the new president outside to review the passing formations of the ceremonial regiment. When the two men left the dais after the last platoon passed, it was on cue from Putin, not Medvedev, who followed the former president's lead.

The ceremony was brief. But the leaders' paired comments, and Putin's physical dominance of each ceremonial stage, neatly framed the central questions about what the inauguration will mean for Russia's politics and direction.

Between the commies over there and our own ascendant socialists, one wonders whether anyone reads history books anymore. I'd say 'no.'

The sad thing is that some of our countrymen on the Left probably expect George Bush--who probably has pleasant visions of Getting Out of Dodge DC forever dancing in his head every night right about now--to behave in this manner when his allotted presidential time is up. No, Leftists, this is what your side does best and most often.

UPDATE: The Duma blesses the marriage.

Russia’s Parliament overwhelmingly confirmed Vladimir V. Putin as prime minister on Thursday, completing a carefully managed departure from the presidency in a manner that left him the country’s dominant politician and with a clear grip on power.

Mr. Putin, out of office less than 26 hours, received 392 votes in the 450-seat Duma, Parliament’s lower house.

Well, with the vote not being unanimous, the process at least appears to be a democratic one.

Because appearance is all that really counts.

Mildred Loving

Mildred Loving, who was one of the plaintiffs in Loving vs. Virginia, died on May 2nd. The other plaintiff was her husband, Richard, who died in 1975. From Wikipedia:

Mildred Loving (nee Mildred Delores Jeter, a woman of African and Rappahannock Native American descent,