Appeasing North Korea

Regular readers of this blog (ha, ha, ha) know that I religiously scour the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. It's a very enlightening activity. Even though it has the second best circulation of any U.S. newspaper (USA Today is number one), far too few people are aware of the valuable information in its pages. As I noted in a previous post , the WSJ accurately predicted our current economic calamity with two series of editorials - one on the Fed's loose money policies and the other on government endorsement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac subsidized subprime mortgages. More recently the paper has been giving former U.N. ambassador John Bolton a platform to condemn our diplomatic efforts at persuading North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions. Even Bolton's former boss, President Bush, has not been spared his scorn. So far, everything Bolton has predicted - missile launches, nuclear tests, belligerence - has come to pass. An editorial today (not by Bolton) gives a good, concise history of our futile appeasement of North Korea.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124363766093667839.html#mod=todays_us_opinion

A more entertaining look at the issue is provided on NRO by, who else but Mark Steyn. A sampling.

If you’re American, it’s natural to assume that the North Korean problem is about North Korea, just like the Iraq War is about Iraq. But they’re not. If you’re starving to death in Pyongyang, North Korea is about North Korea. For everyone else, North Korea and Iraq, and Afghanistan and Iran, are about America: American will, American purpose, American credibility. The rest of the world doesn’t observe Memorial Day. But it understands the crude symbolism of a rogue nuclear test staged on the day to honor American war dead and greeted with only half-hearted pro forma diplomatese from Washington.
Pyongyang’s actions were “a matter of . . . ” Drumroll, please! “ . . . grave concern,” declared the president. Furthermore, if North Korea carries on like this, it will — wait for it — “not find international acceptance.” As the comedian Andy Borowitz put it, “President Obama said that the United States was prepared to respond to the threat with ‘the strongest possible adjectives . . . ’ Later in the day, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the North Korean nuclear test ‘supercilious and jejune.’ ”
The president’s general line on the geopolitical big picture is: I don’t need this in my life right now. He’s a domestic transformationalist, working overtime — via the banks, the automobile industry, health care, etc. — to advance statism’s death grip on American dynamism. His principal interest in the rest of the world is that he doesn’t want anyone nuking America before he’s finished turning it into a socialist basket-case.

Even if you disagree with the sentiment, isn't that delicious writing?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2NmZDNmYmIyNzk2ZTExNzQ1M2FiMWQ0Y2JmNDI5MzI=

Yes Peggy, You're Cool

In the WSJ today Peggy Noonan's again doing her usual I'm just oh so reasonable compared to most of the other pundits and politicians out there being hysterical and why can't they all be like me routine. Some of her comments are plainly insipid. Consider this gem.

Ask Ted Kennedy, if he had it to do over again, if he would repeat all his intemperate and unjust words about "Bob Bork's America" and "back-alley abortions" and blacks turned away from lunch counters. He'd be a fool if he said yes. He damaged himself in that battle.

Oh really? I won't make any remarks about the foolishness of Ted Kennedy, but I doubt he'd say that he was wrong to slander Bork. He and his Democratic colleagues didn't consider themselves "damaged". They've continued the practice of character assassination of Republican nominees for the Federal Appeals Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. The list is long. Clarence Thomas, Miguel Estrada, Samuel Alito, Charles Pickering, Priscilla Owen, Bill Pryor to name a few. Kennedy and friends regret nothing.
How about this from Noonan.

Newt Gingrich twitters that Judge Sotomayor is a racist. Does anyone believe that?

If by racist you mean someone makes decisions about individuals based on their race, then yes, I believe that. Look beyond her "wise Latina woman" comment and consider her ruling in the Ricci case. Why did she reject the plaintiffs' claim that they were unjustly denied promotions? Was it because they were unqualified? Was the test unfair? No. She denied it because they weren't African-American. Isn't that racism?

And then there's Noonan's trademark sappiness.

New York is proud of her; I'm proud of our country and grateful at its insistence, in a time when some say the American dream is dead, that it most certainly is not. The dream is: You can come from any place or condition, any walk of life, and rise to the top, taking your people with you, in your heart and theirs. Maybe that's what they mean by empathy: Where you come from enters you, and you bring it with you as you rise. But if that's what they mean, then we're all empathetic. We're the most fluid society in human history, but no one ever leaves their zip code in America, we all take it with us. It's part of our pride. And it's not bad, it's good.

As the expression goes, Oh puke.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124354585930464037.html

Breaking News! House Speaker Swears Off Botox Treatments!

The House Speaker - Au naturel

Citing a progressive decline in her cognitive abilities which has seemed to accelerate the past few years, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided to give up her long term addiction to botox cosmetic therapy.
"The doctors told me that it couldn't get into my brain. They were obviously wrong," Pelosi said. "That stuff just made me just so confused. I couldn't think straight. I couldn't remember things. Things I did remember, I felt the urge to lie about. I couldn't help it. It was embarassing watching myself on TV. I sounded like an idiot. I knew I had to change. And I did. I went cold turkey. I know I look like shit, but it's a small price to pay to have a fuctioning mind."
Pelosi admits having supported the enhanced interrogation program. "This happened what, six, seven years ago. I wasn't completely brain dead yet which you have to be to oppose such a beneficial policy."
Pelosi says she plans to give up politics. "It's a revelation being able to think clearly. I see now just how messed up I was. After more than 30 years in politics I plan on getting a real job. Maybe open up a small business serving military families. I'm considering moving near Fort Hood in Texas, somewhere in the heartland. I need to get away from the sordid, hedonistic environment where I now live." (San Francisco).
When asked what she regretted most about her muddled minded past, Pelosi became emotional and responded, "No question. Actively opposing the Bush administration. I'd like to take this opportunity to publicly apologize to the American people for the damage I caused the country. And to say how sorry I am to all the members of the magnificent Bush team from the lowliest staffers to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and of course, to the great man himself, George W. Bush."

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I promise at some point to balance this tasteless cheap shot with a similar one at a hard core Republican. Maybe Olympia Snowe. Or Susan Collins. Colin Powell perhaps.

The Ridiculous and The Sublime

In deciding which one quality best describes President Obama, it would have to be a toss up between disingenuousness and hypocrisy. Kimberley Strassel spotlights both in her WSJ column today on Obama's double standard for Supreme Court justices.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355478303064587.html#mod=todays_us_opinion

Also writing about Sonia Sotomayor there's Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol and Ann Coulter. Each of them discuss the less than empathetic attitude that Sotomayor had for Frank Ricci and 17 other New Haven firefighters when their well earned promotions were unjustly denied.

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/05/29/sotomayor_criticize,_then_confirm

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/558lnuvu.asp

http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2009/05/27/i_feel_your_pain_not_theirs_yours

Another WSJ item of interest today is Stephen Moore's article ridiculing critics of the late Milton Friedman. Noting that it was the rejection of his principles that help lead to the current recession, Moore credits the free market policies Friedman advocated for the unprecedented economic progress we experienced from 1980-2005. Moore relates a particularly salient Friedman acecdote for these "government stimulus program" times.

At one of our dinners, Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: "You don't understand. This is a jobs program." To which Milton replied: "Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it's jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355131075164361.html#mod=todays_us_weekend_journal

Get With The Program Mr. Kim!

The U.S. and South Korea put their military forces on high alert Thursday after North Korea renounced the truce keeping the peace between the two Koreas since 1953. The North also accused the U.S. of preparing to attack the isolated communist country in the wake of its second nuclear bomb test, and warned it would retaliate to any hostility with "merciless" and dangerous ferocity.
...two Americans, journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling, remained in custody in Pyongyang accused of illegal entry and "hostile acts." They face trial in Pyongyang next week.

First a missile launch, then a nuclear test, now all this. Strange that the North Koreans would continue to pursue what they consider their national self-interest in the wake of President Obama's worldwide campaign of appeasement.

Powell, Sotomayor, Specter

Unfortunately for Republicans, the wrong RINO decided to stay with the party. Colin Powell and Arlen Specter have nearly identical left of center viewpoints but Powell remains while Specter bolted. Powell's party affiliation doesn't matter - he's basically just a political commentator at this point - while Specter's switch gives the Democrats (potentially) a filibuster proof majority.

Powell's political commentary doesn't warrant the high regard that the MSM gives it. His basic message is that rigid conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney have turned the electorate away from the GOP. The graph above (from Pew Research) refutes that assertion. There's been essentially no change in Americans' ideology over the past 16 years. It still trends strongly conservative.

Powell's also badly mistaken that the country wants bigger government and higher taxes. This was made clear by the overwhelming rejection that voters in (deep blue) California gave to tax increase proposals last Tuesday. Powell deserves deep respect for his military service and expertise but this doesn't make him particularly knowledgeable in other areas of national policy.

His explanation for his support of Obama for President was specious, in part claiming that the GOP was moving too far to the right by nominating McCain-Palin. As opposed to Bush-Cheney? Some Republicans believed it was a race thing and that was probably part of it. But I think a bigger factor was that Powell wanted to get back at the Bush administration for his having to present the faulty evidence of Iraq's WMD programs at the U.N. As one conservative put it,

"Powell cares a lot about his reputation with Washington elites, and he thinks he was badly damaged by his relationship with the Bush administration. So this is a way to make up for what he regarded as not being treated well by the Bush administration, not being given the due deference he thinks he deserves."

Before getting to Specter, a few words about Sonia Sotomayor. It was inevitable that President Obama would nominate a hard leftist for Supreme Court justice. He's not even being subtle about it, saying that the number one qualification he's looking for is "empathy". Empathy for the poor, for women, for unions and for certain minorities, that is. Having such a prejudicial attitude should disqualify Sotomayor, not commend her. As Karl Rove points out quoting Sotomayor -

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Invert the placement of "Latina woman" and "white male" and have a conservative say it: A career would be finished.

Never mind that. Have a Latina Republican say it, verbatim, and her career would be finished.
Or how about this outrageous statement of Sotomayor made in 2005.

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made."

Anyone with such a distorted view of judicial function should be disbarred, much less be nominated for a position on the Supreme Court. At her confirmation hearing, Sotomayor will no doubt disavow these ideas or at least say they were taken out of context. Then, once confirmed she'll be free to practice her empathetic legislating from the bench.
And what does Arlen Specter think of Obama's choice?

I applaud the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Her confirmation would add needed diversity in two ways: the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the high court.

...And allow the senator to further ingratiate himself with his new party. Specter's betrayal of principal for personal gain brings to mind the classic rebuke from Sir Thomas More to Richard Rich in the 1966 film "A Man For All Seasons". Paraphrasing,

Why Arlen, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world...but for Pennsylvania.

Coordinating Job Coordination Organizers

I used to work with a man who had spent some time in East Germany when it was still the German "Democratic" Republic. In the lobby of his hotel he would watch as three people would circulate, cleaning the ashtrays that were situated on various tables. One person would pick up an ashtray and hand it to a second person. That person would wipe the ashtray clean, then hand it to the third person who would place it back down on a table. This process went on perpetually with the three workers being replaced with another three once their shift ended. It continued even when no one was smoking. Jobs of this sort allowed Communist bloc countries to claim "full employment" despite their basket case economies.
As the Obama administration implements its programs to "create" or "save" 3.2 million or 2.4 million jobs or whatever other number it pulls out of thin air, much worthless, taxpayer funded busywork like ashtray cleaning will result.
For a look at our impending brave new world (and a smile) read Mark Steyn's latest on NRO. A sample.

I don’t want to give the impression that every job funded by the stimulus is a job coordinating the public awareness of programs for grant applications to coordinate the funding of public awareness coordination programs funded by the stimulus. SEVCA (South Eastern Vermont Community Action) is also advertising for a “Job Readiness Program Coordinator.” This is a job coordinating the program that gets people ready to get a job. For example, it occurred to me, after reading the ad, that I might like to be a “Job Readiness Program Coordinator.” But am I ready for it? Increasing numbers of us are hopelessly unready for jobs. Ever since last November, many Americans have been ready for free health care, free daycare, free college, free mortgages — and, once you get a taste for that, it’s hardly surprising you’re not ready for gainful employment. I only hope there are enough qualified “Job Readiness Program Coordinators” out there, and that they don’t have to initiate a Job Readiness Program Coordinator Readiness Program. As the old novelty song once wondered, “Who Takes Care of the Caretaker’s Daughter While the Caretaker’s Busy Taking Care?” Who coordinates programs for the Job Readiness Program Coordinator while the Job Readiness Program Coordinator’s busy readying for his job? If you hum it, I’ll put in for the stimulus funding.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWUyM2QwYzhkMTc5MmQ3M2QyZGMzYjZhZWM0ZTMzOWE=&w=MA==