My American Thinker article about Obama’s American-ness

A few weeks ago, I did a post asking if Barack Obama is anti-American.  I liked the concept, but wanted to refine on it a bit.  Well, that refinement turned into a very long post, which I passed on to American Thinker, and the editors were kind enough to publish it.  Take a gander at it and tell me what you think.

Your scary story for Halloween (NC-17 rating; read without children around)


It’s scary out there!! Have fun tonight!!

Have you ever wondered what happened to all those cute,crazy, good-looking, young hippie chicks who did drugs, smoked weed, got tattooed everywhere and did every guy during the Age of Aquarius back in the 60′s?


Found one!

(WARNING:  Do not go below the fold unless your kids are out of the room. This is a serious warning. Your children may be scarred for life.)

[Read more...]

Do they even listen to themselves?

My husband attended a professional multi-day seminar at an Ivy League university.  One of the classes he attended touched directly upon the work he does day in and day out.  The teacher for this seminar is a professor at the Ivy League institution.  As one of the premier “experts” in his field, he is an advisor to President Obama.  His advice will ultimately affect all of us.

“He’s really brilliant,” said my husband, “but most of what he said was just BS.  That’s not the way things really work.”

When I asked, then, why he was an expert, my husband replied, “Because he really knows his stuff.”

It seemed logical to me, at this point, to note that my husband had just said that the professor didn’t really know his stuff.

“No, you don’t get it,” answered my husband.  “He’s done all sorts of studies, and he’s really brilliant.  He’s an advisor to President Obama.”

I was confused, and I said so:  “I’m confused.  You just told me that what he’s saying doesn’t work in the real world.”

My husband got frustrated.  “Listen to what I’m saying.  He’s an expert.  He’s done lots of studies.  He’s the premier guy on this at [Ivy League University].  He’s an advisor to the President.”

Again, I’m confused:  “But you said he doesn’t make sense when it comes to the practical applications of the subject..”

My husband closed the conversation.  “I can’t talk to you when you’re like this.”

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

The war under Generals Obama, Kerry and Biden

I don’t often do this, as you know, but I’m going to quote Jennifer Rubin’s post in its entirety here.  I think it’s important that people understand precisely what is going on in Washington and how it’s affecting men and women in Afghanistan.  Rubin, unsurprisingly, does as good a job as anyone summing up the immoral behavior at home, which creates death abroad.  This is even worse than Vietnam, because Obama’s conduct here is more deliberate and, in a twisted way, more informed about the risks of his conduct:

This sobering report comes from the Washington Post:

More than 1,000 American troops have been wounded in battle over the past three months in Afghanistan, accounting for one-fourth of all those injured in combat since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. The dramatic increase has filled military hospitals with more amputees and other seriously injured service members and comes as October marks the deadliest month for American troops in Afghanistan.

How many were killed or lost a limb, I wonder, while the president dithered and delayed implementing the recommendations of his hand-picked general? It is not an inconsequential question. The president acts as though there were no downside to the lethargic pace of his decision-making. He would have us believe that there is no price to be paid as he micromanages, province-by-province, the number of troops he’ll dispense. He seems content to entertain the recommendations of Gens. Joe Biden and John Kerry – drawing on their years of experience (in assessing nearly every national-security challenge incorrectly) while discarding that of the real experts.

What’s a few more weeks? Or months? Well, we know there is indeed a price to allowing our current approach to languish. There is a very real cost to delaying implementation of the new plan that is the best available to achieve victory as quickly as possible. The enemy is emboldened. More civilians die. The political and security situation in Pakistan worsens. And more brave Americans are asked to sacrifice themselves while Obama considers and reconsiders whether there isn’t any way to shave some money off the tab and reduce the number of troops his commanders say are needed. After all, health care is going to cost an awful lot.

The horrid reality of war is that parents send their children to die or to return in a condition they could not possibly have envisioned. But to sacrifice even a single American who was engaged in a fruitless exercise or an understaffed operation so the president can conduct a seminar and postpone a confrontation with his own party (which no longer can stomach the “good war”) is reprehensible.

At a certain point, you have to fish or cut bait. Either Obama fights a war, in which case he fights both to win and to ensure that our troops are adequately supported in that fight. Or, Obama withdraws from the fight, and takes our troops out of harm’s way entirely. To do what he’s doing, which is not fighting but leaving our troops there is unconscionable.

A fascinating peek into Britain’s past

We’re not talking about the way distant past here, we’re talking about Britain in the 1950s, a place some found stable, safe and charming, and others repressive and stultifying.  I’m a stable, safe and charming gal myself, so I developed a real sense of nostalgia reading about a place and time I never knew.

UPDATE:  Fixed the caption from “peak” to “peek” — although I guess it was sort of accurate, ’cause Britain seems to have gone way downhill since them.  At leaste my typos are spelled correctly….

What passes for art in San Francisco

Last Sunday, a private San Francisco museum unveiled a new painting, billed as the world’s largest portrait mural.  The mural contains the following edifying images, all homages to the wacky City I once called home:

The colorful mural by acclaimed artist Guy Colwell features Speaker Nancy Pelosi lancing a Republican elephant; a Terminator-dressed Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger patting the back of a grizzly bear; Senator Dianne Feinstein waving the California State flag; Mayor Gavin Newsom performing a same-sex marriage ceremony; former Mayor Willie Brown brandishing a freshly pressed suit; former Board of Supervisors President Angela Alioto donning angel wings outside the Porziuncola Chapel in North Beach (an endeavor Pritikin helped to promote); a singing former Supervisor Tony Hall; former Supervisor Harvey Milk waving a Castro Rainbow flag with former Mayor George Moscone by his side; actress Marilyn Monroe hugging baseball Hall of Famer Joe DiMaggio on the back of a giraffe; San Francisco Chronicle scribe Herb Caen; actress Carol Channing; Emperor Norton; Jerry Garcia; topless stripper Carol Doda; Willie Mayes and Mark Twain, as well as the Zodiac killer, Jim Jones and Huey Newton – all set against an iconic San Francisco skyline.  (Emphasis mine.)

Color me oh-so-naive about the sophisticated art world, but I think a painting that celebrates a City’s heritage by showing a politician brutally, albeit metaphorically, killing her duly elected opponents in a democratic two-party system, and that highlights a serial killer, a mass murderer, and a murderous thug, just lacks the eternal charm that you’d find in, say, a Da Vinci, Van Eyck, or Rembrandt.

Perhaps, though, the painting is just a part of a greater whole, as the museum boasts these other gems, as well:

The mansion also features a few shockers including an Adolf Hitler gallery containing the Fuhrer’s personal world globe and his Swastika armband acquired by two American soldiers at the end of World War II. The authenticated items “are a chilling reminder of the horrendous crimes committed by the most heinous of history’s despots,” Pritikin remarked. The Hitler gallery appropriately displays a large disclaimer that reads: “May the bastard rot in hell.”

In another room, perhaps the most shocking of all, is a working electric chair, complete with a death-row inmate dummy that sizzles and shakes at the flip of the executioner’s switch.

Considering the art world’s Leftism, it can’t be a coincidence that, despite the worst recession in decades, art agencies just got their highest funding in 16 years.   After all, if you were on the Left, wouldn’t you want to fund people like the Chief of the National Endowment for the Arts, who is not only someone whose paycheck has a lot to do with American taxpayers, but who also is a man who thinks Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar.   (I’m not a sufficiently good parodist to take on that one, although others, fortunately, are.)

Friday laugh — and a jab at the health care debate

Jack, the ExPreacherman, emailed me a great joke:

During a visit to the mental asylum, I asked the Director “How do you determine whether or not a patient should be institutionalized?”

“Well,” said the Director, “we fill up a bathtub.  Then we offer a teaspoon, a teacup and a bucket to the patient and ask him or her to empty the bathtub.”

“Oh, I understand,” I said. “A normal person would use the bucket because it’s bigger than the spoon or the teacup.”

“No.” said the Director, “A normal person would pull the plug. Do you want a bed near the window?”

Jack, a devoutly religious man, sees that anecdote as a step towards thinking about eternal salvation.  I, a devoutly political woman, see it as a perfect analogy for the current insanity going on in the health care debate.  As I commented in a facebook string under my real name, it baffles me how the Democrats are completely willing to destroy and attempt to remake a a highly functional system when they could first try some more simple experiments, such as allowing greater competition, increasing the types of insurance that can be offered to the public (not everyone needs a gold plated plan), and limiting malpractice.  The Dems and their followers are not normal.

Both Jack and I in sync in one way, though, because religion is involved here.  Jack seeks salvation from God; the Dems seek salavation from the government.  If I were of a religious mind, I’d go in Jack’s direction every time.

A video in honor of the 1,990 page House health care bill *UPDATED*

I believe the 1,990 page health care bill might be longer than all the works of Proust put together, so here is a little video tribute to the bill’s length — and to the manifest impossibility of any representative’s mastering its contents before November 11, Pelosi’s proposed vote date:

UPDATE:  My friend, John Graham, who specializes in the economics of health care, has taken a first look at the bill and clearly finds its date of issue — near Halloween — timely.  It’s a Frankenstein monster of a bill for size alone.  Jennifer Rubin explains that this monstrous bill functions by raising over $700 billion in taxes and cutting billions in Medicare (monies you know damn well Congress will reinstate next year to the joy and delight of taxpayers everywhere).

Political correctness (and the fear that underlies it) run amok

Horrible story of what happens when political correctness and fear of a violent minority group culminate in a school that saw the administration look the other way for fear of offending those violent minority sensibilities.

This, by the way, is how that paralyzing political correctness, a sensiblity that saps courage and morality, begins.

It’s very hard to imagine a Captain Freddy Spencer Chapman existing today

Extreme experiences produce extreme courage, this article, which summarizes the highlights of a book about Capt. Freddy Spencer Chapman, describes a level of courage and commitment that is well nigh unbelievable.  Capt. Chapman was a British army officer who, when trapped behind enemy lines in Malaya, launched a massive guerrilla warfare offensive that ultimately saw 4000 Japanese troops pursuing him:

In a new biography, historian Brian Moynahan recounts how the young officer successfully led a tiny resistance war that wrought such havoc on Japanese supply lines that local commanders were convinced they were looking for a 200-strong force of Australian guerillas and dispatched a force of 4,000 to catch them.


Wading through swamps, hacking his way through dense vegetation, struggling to navigate when he could barely see the sun, let alone any landmarks, he became weak as his food supplies dwindled to nothing.

His original intention had been to rendezvous with another pocket of British resistance fighters.

But when he arrived at the prearranged point, he discovered that he had been left behind – assumed lost or dead.

Undeterred, Chapman unleashed his guerilla campaign.

In the ‘mad fortnight’ that followed, as Chapman later referred to it, he crept through the jungle night after night to lay charges on railway bridges and roads, derailing troop and supply trains, and blowing convoys of trucks high into the air before raking them with bullets and grenades.

Chapman estimated that, together with the help of two other British officers, he derailed eight trains, damaged 15 bridges, cut the railway track in 60 places, destroyed 40 trucks or cars and accounted for between 500 and 1,500 casualties.

It was, as Earl Mountbatten would later describe it: ‘more than a whole division of the British Army could have achieved’.

The risks were not Chapman’s alone.  The Japanese, like the Germans, enjoyed mass reprisals, so the death of Japanese soldiers would mean the mass slaughter, by bayonet, fire and more, of an entire Chinese village.  I think, though, that Chapman made the right decision not to allow this grotesque form of blackmail (for that’s what it is when an occupying army engages in mass reprisals against the local civilians).  After all, he must have known from the Rape of Nanking, and from the way in which the Japanese had conducted the war to date, that the Japanese would have done horrible things regardless of the attacks against him.  At least with the attacks, Chapman and his team were doing something that would result in the enemy’s ultimate destruction.  Chapman paid a price — suffering for years from nightmares the replayed those horrible deaths — but I doubt he ever questioned his own actions.

I’ll be keeping an eye out for that book if it ever hits American shores. What an amazing person he must have been.

Obama needs to figure out that he’s president, not place holder

Charles Krauthammer goes on full throttle attack against Barack Obama based on Obama’s endless, weasely whining that everything that’s gone wrong with the first nine months of his presidency is all Bush’s fault.  The central focus of this whining, of course, is Afghanistan, which candidate Obama claimed was the necessary war and which candidate Obama complained was the war Bush ignored.  Candidate Obama also promised that he would take immediately action on Afghanistan and fix it.  But now with his feet in the Oval Office, suddenly it’s not President Obama’s problem any more — because it’s all Bush’s fault:

Is there anything he hasn’t blamed George W. Bush for?

The economy, global warming, the credit crisis, Middle East stalemate, the deficit, anti-Americanism abroad — everything but swine flu.

It’s as if Obama’s presidency hasn’t really started. He’s still taking inventory of the Bush years. Just this Monday, he referred to “long years of drift” in Afghanistan in order to, I suppose, explain away his own, well, yearlong drift on Afghanistan.

This compulsion to attack his predecessor is as stale as it is unseemly. Obama was elected a year ago. He became commander in chief two months later. He then solemnly announced his own “comprehensive new strategy” for Afghanistan seven months ago. And it was not an off-the-cuff decision.

Given the non-stop whining and blaming, it’s sometimes hard to remember that Obama desperately wanted, and battled hard, to take on Bush’s job.  For a year and a half, he promised voters — left, right and center — that, with his transformative, nay, God-like* powers, he would resolve those problems instantly and definitively.  Apparently boasting about solving things is not the same as actually solving them.  Indeed, even the ability to offer legitimate criticisms is not the same as the ability to solve problems.  I’m famous for being able to take things apart, but singularly lack the ability to put them back together again.

The fact is that all candidates make abstract promises and then, if elected, have to deal with concrete realities.  All candidates discover that there may be a chasm between those promises and the realities.  Only Obama, though, is so childish and narcissistic that he is unable to accept that he’s in charge now, and that the realities are his problem. Placing blame is no longer a job for the President. It’s just one for the history books. (And if it’s any comfort to Obama, with the plethora of Leftist history professors, he’ll come out on top in there.)


*Have you ever noticed that Leftists really want a God?  The traditional ones aren’t good enough for them, so they go out and create their own.  I have to say that, if I were making up a God, I wouldn’t pick a jug-eared skinny guy who doesn’t like women and tends to engage in trash talk.  (And that’s entirely separate from my profound disagreements with his policies and values.)

Of course it’s socialized medicine! And that’s a good thing.

I don’t normally follow film critics to get my political information, so I missed what Roger Ebert wrote back in August to explain why Obama Care is a good thing.  Had I read it then, I would have learned that of course it’s socialized medicine — and that’s a good thing.  In a lengthy post responding to critics who whine about how un-American Obama Care is, Ebert offered a careful point-by-point rebuttal, including to the contention that Obama Care is socialized medicine:

¶ It is “socialized medicine.” Yes, it is. The entire society shares the cost. It does not replace private medicine. Just as in the UK and Canada, for example, we would remain free to choose our own insurance policies and private physicians. But it is the safety net for everyone.

¶ It is “socialism.” Again, yes. The word socialism, however, has lost its usefulness in this debate. It has been tainted, perhaps forever, by the malevolent Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who succeeded somehow in linking it with the godless Commies. America is the only nation in the free world in which “socialism” is generally thought of in negative terms. The only nation in which that word, in and of itself, is thought to bring the discussion to a close.

I feel much better now, don’t you?  Now I understand that socialism is just charity on broader terms.  So what if it’s forced charity?  And really, it’s silly to worry about the government using the IRS and its penalties to force this “charity” on everybody.  ‘Cause really, life in socialized countries is fine.  Just ask the citizens of the former Soviet Union, the former National Socialistic Party Germany (better known as Nazi Germany), the former Czechoslovakia, the former Poland, the former Romania, the former Albania, the current China, the current North Korea, the current Venezuela, the current Cuba . . . and on and on.

But those are extreme examples of a good thing run amok, I can hear Ebert saying.  Things are just great in semi-socialized countries.    Well, Mr. Ebert, I guess they’re okay if you don’t mind the government conspiring to change a whole nation’s social order, or the complete control of speech and thought (my example is in England, but check out speech codes and prosecutions in every other semi-socialized country in the world), or the fact that European countries have completely ceded their sovereignty to the EU (that is, whatever is left over after the UN has taken its cut).   And so on.  You get my point.

Socialism is great if your goal is perpetual childhood, free from the responsibility of caring for yourself.  If a minimal level of comfort and irresponsibility is your goal, who really cares if you give up your freedom to act, speak  or think.  At least the government will ensure that there is food on your plate and, provided you’re not to old or sick (see the second video at this link), some type of injection in your arm.  But I wonder, Mr. Ebert, just how many Americans, raised on a 233 year history of liberty are ready to walk quite so quietly into that socialist night.

(By the way, what’s really funny about the above is that it resulted from a conversation with a liberal during which I politely asked him to explain to me the support for his contention that health care is a “right.”  Once he realized that neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution gave any authority for this government power grab, he sent me this link with the bald statement that this would address the whole “rights” argument.  And I guess it does.  In liberal land, we have no rights.)

More on Obama’s hostile relationship to the military

Jennifer Rubin has two posts this morning, both of which illustrate my point about the dangerous relationship between our CIC and the military he’s supposed to be leading.  In the first, she talks about the insane decision-making process in D.C., which seems to have little to do with either victory or troop safety:

The White House seminars on the Afghanistan war are continuing. The term papers assigned this quarter include a “province-by-province analysis of Afghanistan to determine which regions are being managed effectively by local leaders and which require international help, information that his advisers say will guide his decision on how many additional U.S. troops to send to the battle.” But there is a hint as to where this is headed. The military commanders are being phased out and the political appointees are taking charge:

The review group once included intelligence officials, generals and ambassadors, but it has recently narrowed to a far smaller number of senior civilian advisers, including Biden, Gates, Jones, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, among others.

But the game is obvious here. Extract information, second-guess the military, and lower the troop levels:

“There are a lot of questions about why McChrystal has identified the areas that he has identified as needing more forces,” said a senior military official familiar with the review, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations candidly. “Some see it as an attempt by the White House to do due diligence on the commander’s troop request. A less charitable view is that it is a 5,000-mile screwdriver tinkering from Washington.”

No wonder the process is taking so long. All this homework and micromanaging takes time. But in the end, will the American people believe that faux Gens. Biden and Emanuel were smarter than Gen. Stanley McChrystal? The voters in repeated polls have already said they trust the military commanders by a wide margin over the president to make the calls on Afghanistan. That isn’t how it should work in our system of civilian control. But the public has smelled a rat — and is right to conclude that the president and his team aren’t making decisions on the merits but rather are massaging the facts to get to a result they desire.

The seminar process has not inspired confidence. Moreover, the president’s failure to reiterate the importance of a successful outcome (he doesn’t like the word victory) has allowed public support for the war to erode further. It’s hard to see whether the president still believes in the effort, given that he’s decided that “the Taliban cannot be eliminated as a military and political force, regardless of how many more troops are deployed.” We are now in the business of half-measures and inconclusive outcomes.

As you can see, the president is involved in political calculations, with little concern for military outcomes.  The war he said was a necessity is now a problem, and Emanuel, Kerry and Biden are trying to turn it into Kerry’s famous “police action.”  This is how troops die — and, worse, die for nothing.

What’s even sadder is that, as Rubin also points out, the money that could have been used to win a war, save lies and create jobs has been piddled (if you count waterfalls of cash as piddling) away on pork:

This report tells us:

An early progress report on President Barack Obama’s economic recovery plan overstates by thousands the number of jobs created or saved through the stimulus program, a mistake that White House officials promise will be corrected in future reports.The government’s first accounting of jobs tied to the $787 billion stimulus program claimed more than 30,000 positions paid for with recovery money. But that figure is overstated by least 5,000 jobs, according to an Associated Press review of a sample of stimulus contracts.

Forget the error rate and the funny double-counting. If we created 25,000 jobs, we’re talking $31.48 million per job created. (That uses the conservative figure of $787B, which does not include interest.) This is how the taxpayers’ money is being spent. And the administration declares this a success, beyond its expectations. We’re heading for double-digit unemployment, but we’re told this was money well spent.

Meanwhile, the Obama team can’t find the money — or is it the will to ask for the money? – to give Gen. McChrystal all the funding for troops he needs. We don’t have enough to continue the F-22 — which would create directly or indirectly 95,000 high-paying jobs. We need to chisel a billion here and there on missile defense. After all, we need to watch how we spend the taxpayers’ money.

Watcher’s Council nominations

Here’s what I’ll be studying, with pleasure, tomorrow morning, from the Watcher’s Council:

Council Submissions

Council Submissions

By the way, be sure to read the Watcher’s own post, which accompanies the nominations, because it’s a delightful exposure of the cognitive dissonance that is plaguing Obama’s disappointed fans.

It’s so not PC, but I like it

Sousa’s marches have a lovely fin de siecle quality that makes them ageless.  This march, though, isn’t ageless, but it’s damn good, and I really, really, really love how completely un-PC it is.  It speaks to the heart of the troops’ job, without apology.  As my Dad always said (and, my God, did he know), you have to hate your enemy to fight and win a war.  This song, meant for the troops, understands that.  This doesn’t mean soldiers have to be unduly brutal or violate the conventions of modern warfare.  But they do need to hate.  Otherwise, they have no justification for what they do.

And as a reminder, this enemy — the Islamic extremist — is worth hating.  This enemy, wherever its ideology strikes, does the following things with great pleasure:

I’m pretty sure some people just don’t sleep

I was reading Kurt Schlicter’s enjoyable and savage attack on John Lennon’s Imagine, when I got the yen to find out just who this Kurt Schlicter is.  Big mistake.  People like Schlicter make me realize that I’ve wasted way too much of my life doing silly things like sleeping and reading junk novels:

Kurt Schlichter is a former stand-up comic and comedy writer. He is also a civilian trial lawyer and partner at Schlichter & Shonack, LLP, in Manhattan Beach, California, where his work has included entertainment issues. He spent over 20 years in the Army on active duty and in the National Guard, rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel and commanding the elite 1st Squadron, 18th Cavalry. He also served in both Desert Storm and in Operation Enduring Freedom in Kosovo, as well as in several civilian support missions from the Los Angeles riots of 1992 to the San Diego fires of 2007.

So, if I can put all of the above in some sort of order:  20 years in the active duty military and the National Guard, fought in two wars, provided civilian support at home, comedy writer, stand up comic, and successful lawyer.  I, in roughly the same time, went to college, went to law school, and practiced law (sort of).  I’m suffering from a bad case of “efficient life management” envy.


Last week’s Watcher’s Council winners — and a couple of announcements

Once again, I’m running a little late but I’m still getting there in the end.  Here are last week’s winners for the Watcher’s Council:

Winning Council Submissions

Winning Non-Council Submissions

Also, two announcements, one just because you might find it interesting and the other because you might want to act upon it. First, in response to some very constructive criticism, the Watcher’s Council will be reverting to the prior pattern of looking to blogs, not newspaper articles or other online publications, for non-Council submissions.  This should allow you to read a wide variety of things, rather than the same things you yourself have seen on your daily internet wanderings.  Second, there are openings on the Watcher’s Council so, if you’re a blogger who is interested, read this.

Others are noting Obama’s weird relationship with women

With the trigger being Obama’s obsession with niqabs and hijabs, I did a lengthy post about my belief that Obama fundamentally does not like women.  He depends on strong women (his wife, Valerie Jarrett), but he doesn’t like them.  In fact, I’m willing to bet that his dependence on them only increases that dislike.  I’ll add here that male narcissists are often the product of genuinely unloving mothers and that a strong dislike for women is an intregral part of their make-up.  (And consider how frequently Obama’s mother abandoned him throughout his young life, when she wasn’t dragging him around like an old anchor.)

Others are catching on to Obama’s fraught relationship with women.  The trigger isn’t anything so deep as his desire to see women veiled.  Instead, it’s those all male golf courses.  Obama’s desire to get his recreation in all male environments (golf, basketball, etc.) has Bonnie Erbe, at U.S. News and World Reports, thinking:

Whether it was his treatment of Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail (as in his condescending remark that she was “likeable enough”) or his clearly career-oriented mate who has been toned down and remorphed into a Stepford Wife, I just don’t get the impression this man is comfortable with women. Nor do I believe he cares about them beyond needing women’s votes. It’s an act and a thoroughly see-through, amateur one at that.

As you know, I was all over that condescending remark to Hillary, but I saw it more as a sign of the man’s arrogance, than his innate misogyny.  Put it together with the other stuff, though, and Erbe may well be on to something.

One more thing:  Erbe can’t resist in her post being nasty about the old Southern politician Jesse Helms.  But I think there’s a difference between, on the one hand, old guys who never got it with women’s lib, but who still fundamentally liked women (and I don’t think Helms ever showed dislike for women) and, on the other hand, a true misogynist, who really hates women at a fundamental level that goes far beyond societal beliefs about women’s roles.

Is the administration setting up a Vietnam in Afghanistan? *UPDATED*

I’ve said it a million times and I’ll now say it for the million and first time:  You fight wars to win.  If you’re not committed to winning, leave.  If you don’t leave, and fight a half-assed war, you end with dead soldiers.  That’s what happened in Vietnam, and that’s what Obama and Biden are planning to see happen in Afghanistan.

Although a liberal assured me I shouldn’t worry.  He said that a “vast majority” (and who knew 53% was a vast majority?) of Americans voted for Obama and Biden and that those two can therefore be trusted to make the right decisions.  I suggested, more politely than this idiot deserved, that Obama’s and Biden’s profound lack of military experience meant that Americans trusted them to following the generals (whom Americans do trust to know how to wage war), rather than to go their own way.  “Oh, no,” he responded.  “We have to have faith in Obama.”  When I hit that religious wall, I knew all rational discourse was over.

Trust Jennifer Rubin, of course, to explain exactly what the problem is with the advisors to whom Obama is listening.  Having given Biden a fair hearing, Obama’s now turned to someone else:

The bad news is that Kerry is Obama’s new best adviser. What this boils down to is chiseling on the troops by dragging the process out so as to “diffuse the political problem of asking Congress to fund 40,000 more troops — at about $40 billion — all at once.” Because, with a trillion dollars needed for a health-care bill the voters don’t want, we plainly don’t have $40B to win a critical war, right? And Obama can’t be expected to persuade Congress to do what is needed to win the war, so “diffusing” — denying his general the troops he says he needs — is the way to go.

My advice, and I never thought I’d say this, is that if you are a young person contemplating a military career, wait four years and see who our next president is. The current president has no care for your welfare. And if your enlistment is up, take the skills you’ve learned and go elsewhere.

UPDATE:  Apropos my final suggestion, maybe military service is still worth the greater risks the Obami are creating.  In a National Review Online interview, Dan Senor and Saul Singer, authors of Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle, explain why the military is such an essential part of Israel’s incredible economic vitality:

LOPEZ: What’s the secret of its success?

DAN SENOR: Our book dives into many interacting factors, but one of the most important is the training and battlefield experience that most Israelis receive in the military. The military is where many Israelis learn to lead and manage people, improvise, become mission-oriented, work in teams, and contribute to their country. They tend to come out of their years of service (three for men, two for women) more mature and directed than their peers in other countries. They learn “the value of five minutes,” as one general told us. They even learn something more uniquely Israeli: to speak up — regardless of ranks and hierarchy — if they think things can be done better.

Certainly that jives with what I’ve seen of people who enter and leave our military.

When I was growing up, one of the neighborhood boys was a slacker before that term was invented. He was a bright kid who lay on the couch, watched TV and drank beer. When his parents kicked him out, he ended up joining the military because he thought it was a way to avoid “real” work. The military was the making of him. It gave him the discipline he’d sorely lacked before. When he got out, a long time later, he became one of the early dot com millionaires. He was never one of the huge players, but he also had moved so far beyond the couch slacker that it was hard to believe the two were the same people.

UPDATE II:  Please see a further discussion in the comments section to this post regarding the pros and cons of staying, not in the military, but in Obama’s military.  I think my point is valid, but I’m awfully impressed by the arguments coming in from the other side.

Thomas Frank’s weird defense of Obama’s attack on Fox News *UPDATED*

As far as I can tell, Frank’s primary defense of Obama’s attack on Fox News is that Obama isn’t as bad as Nixon’s attacks on the press were.  Given the low esteem in which liberals hold Nixon, I think we can safely call that damning with faint praise.  (Or, perhaps, praising with faint damns would be more accurate.)

UPDATE:  Showing that history didn’t end with Richard Nixon, Steven Crowder gives a few more reminders about the Obami’s attacks on free speech they find offensive.

What the president really meant to say in his talk to the troops

James Taranto nails what the President really meant to say when he spoke to troops about Afghanistan:

“I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way,” quotes the president as telling servicemen. As for the servicemen who are already in harm’s way: Jeez, guys, be patient! He’ll figure out what to do about Afghanistan as soon as he gets around to it.

Things that caught my brain today — and Open Thread *UPDATED*

I have deadline work today, so won’t be able to blog for a while.  ‘Til then, I was impressed with these morning reads:

The Post-Gracious President, which focuses on Obama’s ongoing battle against the now long-departed President Bush.  I think Obama is a singularly unpleasant person, as I’ve blogged before, and as is demonstrated by his ghetto boasting and slanging and his attacks on those who hurt his sensibilities (e.g., Fox), so I also think this article hits the nail on the head.

Obama Taking Us On Path to Fascism, the title of which is self-explanatory.  Fortunately, but sadly, the essay has a lot of facts to support that title.  Thomas Sowell, not surprisingly, has noticed the same trend.

Democrats’ Policies Based on Dogma, Hopes, Dreams, But Not Realty, which talks about the liberal religion that enshrines government

Bawney Fwank, in a few seconds, explaining his “religion” and revealing his fascism.

And, on a lighter note, it looks as if there’s a wonderful new biography of Louisa May Alcott out there.  I’ve already reserved my copy at the library.

Even as Bret Stephens scoffs at global warming, and Americans lose that glow, the AP earnestly assures us that statisticians know that global warming is real.  Will the real climate change theory please stand up?

UPDATE(S)Media catches on to the Bush/Obama double-standard.

A matched set on the swine flu:  AJ Strata about manipulation to denigrate American health care and Power Line on the real failure.