Don’t waste your tears on Roman Polanski

The arrest of fugitive director Roman Polanski in Switzerland has sent shock waves of righteous indignation throughout the Hollywood community. The capsule version of Polanski’s sin is this: in 1977, he plied a 13-year-old girl with alcohol and drugs before raping her. After a plea agreement in which the charges of sodomy and rape were dropped, Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape before fleeing to France where he has remained since, ever fearful of extradition but still directing films and living fairly comfortably.

I must have missed the memo that mandated the wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding Polanski’s recent capture, but numerous celebrities have received it and acted on it. Whoopi Goldberg defended Polanski on The View saying he didn’t commit “rape-rape” (just statutory rape, don’t you know), and he’s attracted the support of people like Harvey Weinstein and the French culture minister. Meanwhile, a petition with more than 100 signatories including Martin Scorsese, Michael Mann and Woody Allen has surfaced that defends Polanski and protests his arrest.

Yes, it can be said that his victim, now 44, has forgiven him and wished for the whole ordeal to go away. But here’s the thing – in my opinion such an act is one of moving forward personally from trauma than one of absolution for the perpetrator. If the family of the victim of a murderer forgave him, would we set him free? The feelings of the players involved doesn’t negate the act committed or the admission of guilt by Polanski.

It’s ridiculous to me to raise such ire over a man who, in essence, is a child molester. Ah, but he’s such a great artist, a visionary director! Then let cinematic history judge his films, and let American justice judge his crimes. One’s artistic proclivities or abilities, despite what the intelligentsia believe, doesn’t make one more superior than the rest of the vast unwashed masses and thus above the laws for mere mortal men. Yet the same crowd so willing to look the other way for one of their own will feel no qualm about lecturing us on morality and social issues, a hypocrisy so stunning that it demolishes any shred of credibility for an artistic community that claims to stand up for victims.

The more Hollywood moans about Polanski, the more it’s obvious how out of touch they are with common sense and the basic decency that is shared by those less enlightened then they. As for me, I’ll shed no tears for Roman Polanski and shake my head at those that will.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Senate Finance Committee rejects public option

The Senate Finance Committee rejected two amendments offered by Senators Charles Schumer and Jay Rockefeller that would have injected a taxpayer-funded and government-run public option into the bill authored by Sen. Max Baucus currently under consideration. The Rockefeller amendment was voted down by a margin of 15-8, which saw chairman Baucus and five other Democrats joining united Republican opposition to the public option. The Schumer amendment was defeated by a margin of 13-10. The “nay” votes by Baucus was one of pragmatism, as he had this to say:

The public option would help to hold insurance companies’ feet to the fire, I don’t think there’s much doubt about that, but my first job is to get this bill across the finish line … No one shows me how to get to 60 votes with a public option.

Reading between the lines tells you that there’s fractured support among Democrats for the public option, as all by themselves they have the 60 votes that Baucus is looking for. But moderate and centrists Democrats have misgivings about a government plan, and their doubts are bolstered by sliding poll support driven by public confusion and opposition to the public option as it’s been presented thus far.

Don’t think that this signals the final defeat of the public option, not when Speaker Pelosi says she won’t vote for a bill with no public option with 100 House Democrats are with her. Support may be passionate and intense in the House, but in the Senate it is far more tepid, as indicated by these votes. It may fall to being added by the conference committee, which might be a clever way to get around legislative hurdles but seems like a dishonest way to introduce such broad and sweeping legislation. It’s a setback for public option supporters, for sure, but by no means has the fat lady sung on this one.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Obama to Copenhagen in Olympic push

President Obama will fly to Copenhagen, Denmark to lend his support for the bid by Chicago for the 2016 Olympics, the first time a sitting American President has made such an appearance. The other potential favorite is Rio de Janeiro alongside other contenders Madrid and Tokyo, and Obama will try to use his international “star power” to woo the International Olympic Committee and put Chicago over the top.

I have to wonder if hosting the Olympics is worth the unprecedented effort by the administration. While hosting the Olympics is undoubtedly an honor, America has hosted the Games numerous times in the past; indeed, it was only 13 years ago when the Summer Games came to Atlanta, and only 7 since the Winter Games came to Salt Lake City. Since Olympic memories are so recent for this country, there’s no insatiable national thirst to host the Olympics.

Complicating matters is the support of the people of Chicago themselves. A poll by the Chicago Tribune on September 3rd revealed that support and opposition are nearly equal, at 47-45% respectively, and a whopping 84% don’t want to use any public money to finance the hosting of the Games. They have a right to be skeptical of potential costs, as four Olympic host cities are still in debt from the experience according to a Forbes article that also provides an excellent breakdown of the potential breakdown of costs.

So why the urgent push by the President? I imagine it has less to do with a national yearning or chimeric economic benefits and more to do with personal politics. Chicago is Obama’s hometown and landing the Games would be a substantial payback for the political machine through which the President rose. There are many public, private and union entities that would be giddy for the chance to get their fingers on all the money that will be flowing in to get the city ready for an Olympic event.

Would it be nice to host the Olympics again? Sure, but it wouldn’t be a big deal if America lost out to a country like Brazil. The frantic push by the President isn’t necessary and only smells like back-scratching for his cronies back in Chicago who would have much to gain from a successful bid. We’ll see how this ends up, but I’d be quite happy if Rio won the bid. Ed Morrissey makes a compelling case that it’s already a done deal, though, which would be quite a shame.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Obama has talked to Afghanistan commander only once

In an interview on CBS’ 60 Minutes, the commanding American general in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, said he has spoken with President Obama only once in the 70 days he has held the post. The admission comes right after an assessment by Gen. McChrystal that warns of failure of Afghanistan if more resources aren’t committed to the conflict there. The administration’s response to the assessment has been, thus far, to shelve the request until some time in the future.

With the two moves, the administration has displayed a surprising amount of laissez-faire indifference to a conflict that candidate Obama said be should be the focus in the War on Terror. That we no longer call it the War on Terror should give you the first clue about the Obama administration’s true willingness to act assertively in the fight against violent extremism. It begs the question – what exactly does the Obama administration plan on doing in Afghanistan? Candidate Obama had indicated a surge strategy might be a viable option, but now it seems even that is being balked at.

It doesn’t do anything to quell suspicions that the plan is simply to do nothing controversial and merely withdraw without much fanfare from both countries. The public assumed that Obama might take a different course in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I doubt that they expected him to take such a defeatist position. I’m going to give the President the benefit of the doubt, but the apparent neglect of Afghanistan doesn’t inspire me with much confidence.

And, as Ed Morrissey notes, it’s also worth considering that while the President can’t make the time to talk to his top man in Afghanistan, he apparently has enough free time to travel to Copenhagen to push for the Chicago Olympic bid. The priorities are so far out of whack it’s disturbing.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Disgrace: ACORN sues undercover journalists

After a series of videos that showcased ACORN employees in four cities giving tax advice and other aid to undercover journalists posing as a pimp and prostitute interested in starting an underage brothel, ACORN has tied the knot on its own noose – it has sued the two under-30 journalists involved in the sting, Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe,  and the man who owns the website that aired the videos, Andrew Breitbart.

It’s a despicable move that flies in the face of a free press and completely contradicts ACORN CEO’s Bertha Lewis’ supposed thankfulness for the exposure of these “few bad apples” in her organization – a point that Breitbart also notes in an appearance on O’Reilly. It’s also a fairly dumb one as it will bring more attention to the trial and the case that led up to it, and ACORN doesn’t seem to have a fairly strong case, even by forgoing the defamation route and using some odd wiretapping complaint that Leon Wolf at RedState dispenses with rather handily.

Is there anyone who can defend persecuting those who pointed out your previously indefensible foibles, documented on multiple locations in multiple cities? Is ACORN really so arrogant to think that they can shut down any opposition through thuggish tactics like this? Thuggish tactics and shakedowns, however, appear to be their MO, and Bertha Lewis must be living in a dream world if she thinks she’s righteous in doing this.

Hannah Giles has a defense fund set up, which I’m sure will be accompanied soon by one for James O’Keefe. It’s disgusting that these two have to defend themselves against a huge national organization whose only goal is retribution for embarrassment and Congressional removal of tax dollars. I’m not sure how any but the most blindly partisan can continue to defend these shakedown artists or to root for them to win against O’Keefe and Giles. I’ll be pulling for those two to stand up for the simple pursuit of truth against an organization determined to squash it and punish it.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Manuel Zelaya is a head case

Deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya told the Miami Heraldthat his throat is sore from toxic gases and that Israeli mercenaries are torturing him with high-frequency radiation. He’s been sleeping on chairs while holed up in the Brazilian embassy during a city-wide curfew in the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa. Zelaya says he’s being “threatened with death” by a “military dictatorship.” Israel, for its part, can’t confim the presence of its commandoes in Honduras.

It’s a good thing that Zelaya has the help of his UFO space brothers to protect him from the Illuminati conspiracy determined to take him down so they can sell his liver to an illicit Asian organ ring. It’s probably due to the files on Sasquatch and the JFK assassination he has implanted in a microchip in his molar. In fact, the main reason Zelaya wants to get back in power is so he can begin the preparations for the end of the Mayan calendar – if it just weren’t for those microwave-wielding Israeli mercenaries.

One of the things that surprised me in the article was this:

On Wednesday, the U.N. cut off all technical aid that would have supported and given credibility to that presidential race. Conditions do not exist for credible elections, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said.

So at this point, even if elections took place, the UN and the rest of the world wouldn’t recognize them since “their man” couldn’t take part. I guess they’d prefer someone as stable as Zelaya seems to run the country instead of a civilian government following the rule of law.

I guess someone needs to get Zelaya a tinfoil hat. It’s an international joke that the world is backing this man.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Gallup: 80% are OK with current health care

Gallup has another interesting poll that illustrates the perceptions of the public regarding their own health care quality and costs and reveals the core reason why Americans are skeptical of the current health care plan (Heads up from Hot Air). The poll finds that 80% of Americans are either satisfied or very satisfied with their current level of health care, and 61% are satisfied with their health care costs. The costs of health care are what’s bothering Americans, yet a plurality (42%) believe they’d get worse under health care reform. Here are some relevant graphs from the article:

What the survey reveals is yet another fundamental disconnect between the American people and Washington. There isn’t a vast and sweeping majority who want the current system upended and overhauled – most recognize the need for reform but are mostly comfortable with their own health care. The government’s disproportionately heavy-handed approach isn’t what the people want, and no matter how much we’re lectured how a public option (which the left views as a compromise on their true Holy Grail of a single payer) is the only way to go, it doesn’t change the fact that the government solution doesn’t have the urgency of support like many claim.

The most interesting part of the survey is that even a majority of the uninsured, while obviously worried about cost, are quite satisfied with the level of care they’re receiving. The American people don’t want the current system blown up, and skepticism about costs is what’s driving the opposition to the current health care proposals. It isn’t racism, it isn’t those evil teabaggers, it’s just the overriding opinion of a majority of the American voting populace. Congress can either modify its approach to more closely appeal to its constituents, or it can ram through a public option on some ideological or moral basis that may make them feel good about themselves but will run contrary to the wishes of most of us out here in regular America.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Obama speaks to the United Nations

(Image credit: The Globe and Mail)

President Obama gave a speech before the General Assembly of the United Nations that, like his Cairo speech, was long on hype and short on substance. The full text of the speech can be found here at the New York Times, and I’d urge you to read that instead of the almost comical summary by the Associated Press that reads like a White House press statement. (Hmmmm…)

The speech begins fairly well and is full of standard “let’s all work together” rhetoric, something with which I’m fairly comfortable. Any speech before the nations of the world should have some of this, and while the words themselves are good, it wasn’t anything particularly groundbreaking or game-changing. Of course everyone wants to see peace and prosperity throughout the world, and it’s no big shock to see Obama play on the global anti-Bush sentiment to try to pump himself up as something different (not necessarily better, mind you, but different).

Where the speech sort of fell off the rails for me was when Obama began talking about his “four pillars” for the future. Regarding his first two major ones, nuclear disarmament and climate change, I have fundamental policy disagreements with the administration. Limiting nuclear arms is all well and good, but doing it unilaterally isn’t leadership, it’s an advertisement of weakness. And preaching it to a body that has been sluggish in dealing with Iran and North Korea seems like a waste of flowery prose.

Climate change isn’t settled science, and basing global governing strategy based on a few computer models that have been shown to be flawed makes me nervous. Not to mention that so much of it doesn’t seem to be based on the scientific method but on climatic scare tactics and dire predictions of apocalypse if the world, in the words of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, doesn’t “act in a way that it should.” Pushing this in front of the world just embarrasses me.

It also troubled me that Obama reserved some of his strongest language for Israel, saying the settlements are unequivocally “illegitimate,” and that a two-state solution must be found so that the “occupation” can end. It was nice to hear him say that Palestinian supporters should recognize Israel’s right to exist, but not so much after he said Israel supporters must recognize the rights of the Palestinians, which for the most part they do already. The statement perpetuates the belief that Israel is the boogeyman and the great aggressor in the Middle East conflict, and if we could just get Israel to stop being so evil then the justified Arab attacks would stop. Obama tried to frame the issue in an even-handed way, but little slips like this betray a willingness to put Middle East peace on the doorstep of the Israelis.

Overall, the speech was average at best. I don’t think it was an absolute train wreck like some on the right are saying, but neither do I think that it was such an eloquent and forceful message of Global Hope and Change™ that the world now has no choice but to take notice and follow. Talk, as they say, is cheap, and I’m more impressed by actions than words. That’s why I’ll be putting more stock into what this administration does over the oratory of Obama.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also spoke and had several delegations walk out on him, and Muammar Gaddafi gave a rambling and incoherent speech that some claim upstaged Obama. That these two nutballs were even allowed to speak further diminishes any positive impact of Obama’s appearance. Whatever the President said, the United Nations remains an international circus where thugs and dictators operate with the same moral bearing as the world’s oldest democracies. It’s not a recipe for world harmony and symbiosis; it’s a prescription for inaction, enabling and appeasement.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Should Condi Rice increase her profile in the GOP?

I just read an interesting article by Nina Easton for Fortune about her conversation with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and suggests she’s the “should-be face of the GOP.” She references Dr. Rice’s incredible intelligence and broad appeal that couples with an intriguing personal story that results in an interesting and compelling public figure that can be a positive force in the Republican party.

I have a great deal of admiration for Dr. Rice, and I find her to be incredibly articulate and knowledgable. There’s no doubt that she’s a foreign policy heavyweight, and she offers some measured criticism of the current diplomatic trajectory of the nation. As a person, she comes across as fairly genuine, and I for one would welcome an increased presence in the national debate.

But can she provide an avenue to increasing the GOP’s broader appeal? There’s no doubt that she may be too “Bush” for many, and as two-term bureaucrat for the previous administration she has a lot of baggage that can be thrown back at her. It’s unclear how much blame for earlier failures can be legitimately placed at her feet – as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, I’m not sure if she was a formulator of policy or more of an executor of someone else’s. Guilt by association remains a powerful force in American politics (for one party anyway). But being attached directly or indirectly to the failed policies of previous administrations hasn’t stopped Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Madeline Albright, and numerous others from remaining potent forces in the national spotlight.

In any case, Rice’s present and future actions will overshadow whatever criticism there is of her past association. Some have posited that she might be an excellent Presidential candidate, leading her to publicly rule out a 2008 bid. For a future push to have much success, she’d have to weigh in far more heavily on domestic concerns as opposed to simply running on her strong foreign policy credentials.

The point is moot, however, if she remains on the sidelines. If her personal wish is to stay focused on private sector pursuits, then I respect that desire. But I believe that her voice is of value to the national discourse, and would be beneficial as another strong and positive national figure for the GOP.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Nanny state: Energy Sec compares Americans to unruly teens

In a stunning display of hubris and nanny state mentality, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said that when it comes to energy policy, Americans are basically like stupid teenagers who don’t listen, leaving it to government to educate them:

Speaking on the sidelines of a smart grid conference in Washington, Dr. Chu said he didn’t think average folks had the know-how or will to change their behavior enough to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

“The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.” (In that case, the Energy Department has a few renegade teens of its own.)

Got that? Americans “aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” so it’s up to our betters in government to lecture us and compel us towards the “correct” way of living. This is just one more reason why so many people are skeptical of sweeping climate and energy legislation – the goal seems not to be conservationism, but societal control and government regulation of what’s considered a healthy or green lifestyle.

The Energy Department later put out a lame attempt at spin control:

Secretary Chu was not comparing the public to teenagers. He was saying that we need to educate teenagers about ways to save energy. He also recognized the need to educate the broader public about how important clean energy industries are to our competitive position in the global economy. He believes public officials do have an obligation to make their case to the American people on major legislation, and that’s what he’s doing.

Uh, actually, Chu compared them directly to teenagers and expressed disappointment with the way Americans are choosing to live. When a Cabinet member makes such eyebrow-raising statements about the unwillingness of Americans to do what they say, don’t be surprised when people pay attention.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

No sympathy for Husted here

Ohio State Sen. Jon Husted has filed a lawsuit before the Ohio Supreme Court after Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner ruled that he doesn’t live in Kettering where’s he registered to vote and can’t vote from that address. Brunner, a Democrat, used evidence that included water use to conclude that Husted, a Republican, didn’t live at his Kettering home but instead resided with his wife in Upper Arlington.

Husted is hoping to run for the position of Ohio Secretary of State, and as the lead adjudicator and executor of state election laws, it’s not inspiring to start getting slippery on the definition of residence. Can you play a political angle on this? Maybe. Husted is going after Brunner’s position, who is leaving the post to run for Ohio’s U.S. Senate. But the reality is the facts aren’t looking that great in Husted’s favor right now, and while there may be some undeniable partisan glee at the smackdown, engaging in an arcane argument over residency requirements really shouldn’t be the path to a moral high ground. (Though I do wonder why it took the Ohio Supreme Court to nudge Brunner into action if it was really so obvious that Husted didn’t live there.)

Democratic and liberal-minded Buckeye blogs are crowing about the ruling, but when you have right-leaning blogs like Weapons of Mass Discussion refusing to jump to your defense, you know you have a problem. Hell, he’s my state Senator, and still I can’t muster the energy to come this guy’s defense in the face of material worthy of some serious head-shaking. Right Ohio brings up some valid examples of Democratic residency issues, but the larger point is this – someone running for the kind of office Husted is seeking needs to be more compliant on state election issues.

The Ohio GOP has endorsed Husted for the position of Secretary of State. I’m thinking they need to withdraw that endorsement pronto and show they won’t put up with these kind of shenanigans from one of their own. We’ll see what happens with the court case, but don’t expect much sympathy or cheerleading from me. This is one Miami Valley voter who’s at best indifferent to the ultimate outcome to Husted’s political fortunes.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Zelaya’s return sparks crisis in Honduras

(Image credit: Reuters via UK Telegraph)

Manuel Zelaya returned to Honduras on Monday and has taken refuge inside the Brazilian embassy in the capital of Tegucigalpa, while the government of interim President Roberto Micheletti continues to call for his arrest. Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said, somewhat naively in my estimation, ”he was hopeful Zelaya’s return could start a new stage in negotiations to end the Honduran crisis.” Jose Miguel Insulza, head of the OAS, said Honduras was responsible for the safety of Zelaya and the Brazilian embassy while thousands of Zelaya supporters massed outside the embassy and Zelaya himself remained almost antagonistically defiant.

The State Department has urged calm and restraint on both sides, but Zelaya’s physical presence within the country creates a powder keg of conflict that can easily be set off by a misstep on either side. It’s been my position from the beginning that Honduras had a right to remove Zelaya due to his unconstitutional attempts to lengthen his presidential term. Honduras made Zelaya a very good offer a few weeks ago that would have seen Micheletti step down and Zelaya able to return to the country if he renounced any claim to the Presidency.

Unfortunately, Zelaya has chosen power over what’s best for his nation. Despite what the OAS President claims, I will hold Zelaya responsible for whatever unpleasant outcome results from his reckless return to Honduras. Whatever his rhetoric about the will of the people, you can be sure that the only thing that Zelaya cares about is keeping his power. It’s an absolute travesty that America is backing him and punishing the interim government of Honduras with sanctions.

It’s also troublesome that Zelaya is a close ally of Hugo Chavez, who has in the past threatened military action over the situation in Honduras. It’s very conceivable that Chavez would lend the support of the Venezuelan military for Zelaya  to retake control of the country, ensuring that Venezuela would again have a sympathetic and compliant satellite in the region. This is a tense and crucial time for the sovereignty of Honduras, and I pray a peaceful and beneficial end for the Honduran people will come about. We will see.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Afghanistan needs more troops; will Obama listen?

The Washington Post reports today on a confidential assessment of the Afghanistan conflict by top U.S. and NATO commander Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. The general says the situation is growing more serious, though success is still achievable, but he says that without more American troops over the next year, the Afghanistan war will “likely result in failure.” He notes the Taliban insurgency has become stronger and more able to propagandize, and proposes speeding the growth of the Afghan security forces. He has this to say about resources:

[I]nadequate resources will likely result in failure. However, without a new strategy, the mission should not be resourced.

… Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure.

I’m not a fan of America being in the “nation-building” business, and I don’t want American soldiers being used as pawns towards some abstract foreign policy goal of “promoting freedom.” But here’s the deal: whatever misadventures or distractions came as a result of Iraq, there’s been consent from Democrats and Republicans that Afghanistan is a central part of the War on Terror (or overseas contingency operation, if you wish). It’s generally acknowledged that the Taliban regime fostered al-Qaeda and provided suitable conditions for the planning of 9/11 to take place. A return to Taliban rule, which is a very real possibility should security fail in Afghanistan, would be an unbelievable setback and would make the last eight years of fighting essentially worthless. A surge strategy had some success in Iraq, so it may as well in Afghanistan.

The report sets up an interesting conundrum for the Obama administration. The Democrats have spent the last few years arguing that Afghanistan should be the central front in the fight against terror, and that Iraq was distraction towards those efforts (and those arguments have some merits). Obama said as much during the campaign to build more centrist credibility on defense matter, but now as President, he’s faced with growing unpopularity for the war and a liberal base that will be incensed should he choose to send more troops overseas, leading Charles Krauthammer to question whether he’s paying enough attention to the conflict.

On the other hand, the commander on the ground says he needs more troops to have a chance for success. Politics needs to take a back seat to the overall success of the Afghanistan campaign, but it’s a difficult call to make. I don’t know that President Obama will heed the warnings of Gen. McChrystal (Ed Morrissey doesn’t think so), but I do know that if Afghanistan falls back into Taliban hands, the world becomes more dangerous, and terrorism will have regained a safe haven in the Middle East. I loathe sending more troops into the Af-Pak theater, but if it is necessary to beat back the Taliban so that other efforts can succeed in securing the country, then the commanders in the field should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Update: However it affects your reasoning, Afghan President Hamid Karzai is echoing calls for more troops in the country.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Nuclear arsenal poised to be cut under Obama’s plan

The UK Guardian reports that President Obama has rejected a Pentagon nuclear review as “too timid” and ordered a more radical review to pave the way for deep cuts in America’s nuclear weapons arsenal. The President’s eventual goal is the abolition of all nuclear weapons, and to that end the article lists a few options towards that goal:

• Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.

• Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.

The broader strategy is produce disarmament momentum ahead of Obama’s chairmanship of a UN session that will see a push for tougher non-proliferation treaties and more radical disarmament from the present nuclear powers. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband writes that the stakes are high:

“This is one of the most critical issues we face,” the foreign secretary writes. “Get it right, and we will increase global security, pave the way for a world without nuclear weapons, and improve access to affordable, safe and dependable energy – vital to tackle climate change. Get it wrong, and we face the spread of nuclear weapons and the chilling prospect of nuclear material falling into the hands of terrorists.”

This move isn’t a surprise to any who saw such “no-nuke” tendencies in Obama the candidate, and while nuclear non-proliferation is a laudable goal, unilateral disarmament isn’t the way to go about it. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said chances are “quite high” for a deal on Russian arms reduction, but it’s by no means a sure thing, and Moscow won’t feel much pressure to compete with a Washington establishment that seems all too willing to hobble itself first in the hopes that others will follow. Leading by example won’t inspire other nations, particularly Iran and North Korea, to do the same as they’ll be only too glad that America has taken to disarming itself.

Even under the proposed cuts, it’s true that America will still have a few hundred nukes, each of which are potent enough weapons. But as Ed Morrissey writes, nuclear disarmament in this fashion is a relic of Cold War thinking since the most potent nuclear threat comes not from massive nuclear exchanges but from rogue states and terrorists. Nuclear non-proliferation ought to be focused in those areas instead of fulfilling a stale 30-year-old dream that has little to do with substance and reality and more to do with naive ideology.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Obama “happy to look at” newspaper bailout

The Hill is reporting that President Obama, in an interview with the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade, said that he would be “happy to look at” proposals that would give news organizations tax breaks if they reorganized as non-profits. In the past, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has downplayed the prospects of a so-called newspaper bailout, but comments like this will further fan the flames of worries of a press bailout.

There is currently a bill in the Senate introduced by Sen. Ben Cardin and co-sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, both Democrats from Maryland, named the “Newspaper Revitalization Act” that would give press outlets tax breaks if they reorganize as 501(c)(3) entities. And back in May, Sen. John Kerry held a hearing on the “Future of Journalism” that many saw as a prelude to a press bailout.

Then there’s this quote:

Obama said that good journalism is “critical to the health of our democracy,” but expressed concern toward growing tends in reporting — especially on political blogs, from which a groundswell of support for his campaign emerged during the presidential election.

“I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding,” he said.

It’s not helpful to political discourse when a President and political party simultaneously offer financial support for news organizations while at the same time express concern with those news entities that won’t need their help. And, really, after all the great press the President received during the campaign and the first few months of his Presidency, what does he truly have to complain about? That folks aren’t accepting at face value the claims put forth in the health reform debate? So all it takes is a few months of slightly critical reporting and suddenly there’s a concerning trend in journalism?

I’m not buying it, and if there should ever be one industry exempt from government assistance, the so-called “free press” should be it.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::