As an added bonus, I’m looking forward to the opportunity to blog under my own name.

Without naming Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush, it highlighted the differences in America’s engagement with the rest of the world since the change of administration in January.

“Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.

“Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts,” it said, and the United States was playing a more constructive role in tackling climate change.

The Nobel Committee made a similar gesture when it selected President Jimmy Carter in 2002, as CNN reported in their dispatch.

The announcement of the award came only hours after the U.S. House and Senate gave President George W. Bush authorization to use military force against Iraq in order to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring that Baghdad give up weapons of mass destruction.

In an interview with CNN, Carter declined to address the situation with Iraq, saying instead he would rather focus on the peace prize.

Asked if the selection of the former president was a criticism of Bush, Gunnar Berge, head of the Nobel committee, said: “With the position Carter has taken on this, it can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq.”

It would seem, then, that the US truly is finally on the path to being respected and liked, really liked by the international community (the IOC notwithstanding).  Well, at least most of the European Community;  here’s the opinion from the Times (UK) Online.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.

The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s decision to “strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Many people will point out that, while the President has indeed promised to “reset” relations with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the Muslim world, there is little so far to show for his fine words.

The Wall Street journal highlights similar concerns  from Norway and from previous Nobel Laurates.

 ”So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far,” former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983, said Friday. “He is still at an early stage.”

Even in Norway, where Mr. Obama enjoys huge popularity, the decision raised eyebrows among some. “It is just too soon,” said Siv Jensen, leader of Norway’s main opposition party, the Progress Party. “It is wrong to give him the peace prize for his ambition. You should receive it for results.”

She said that the decision to bestow the award on the president was the most controversial she could remember and was one of a number that had moved the prize further away from the ideals of Alfred Nobel.

Others made the same point in somewhat more diplomatic language. Amnesty International, which won the peace prize in 1977, congratulated Mr. Obama but said he couldn’t stop there. “President Obama has taken some positive steps towards improving human rights in the U.S.A. and abroad, but much remains to be done,” said Irene Kahn, Amnesty’s secretary general.

It’s good that President Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize; it’s a feather in our collective caps, and an indication that a part of the European community does recognize the election of President Obama as a positive move toward “reconcilliation” with the international community.  The question lingers at the end of the night, though, “what does that mean to us as a nation, and what are the implications of awarding a wartime president the Nobel Peace Prize?”  

Enjoy the party, Mr. President, but don’t forget that tomorrow is a work day.

I do find it interesting that the left takes conservative disdain for Obama as proof of a lack of patriotism or as an indication that the conservative movement has entered an era in which its politics are dominated by a deep visceral dislike of President Obama.  Here’s Paul Krugman in the NY Times.

So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.

But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.

Implicit in Professor Krugman’s observation is that Obama stands for what is good for America; that the Chicago games were unequivocally good for America and that conservatives opposed Obama in his mission or took comfort in Chicago’s failure principally because the outcome reflected on him. The same argument is being forcefully made regarding health care – to oppose the Democratic proposal is to have no proposal and therefore opposition is a purely partisan act. Ultimately, this view takes you down the road that equates criticism of the president or opposition to his policies (or to his cult of personality) as a rejection of America – and that implies a belief that the president is the state. Krugman’s viewpoint is only possible if you attach importance to Obama as the singular symbol and embodiment of America; ironic when you consider the facility with which the left separated their love of country from their absolute hatred of Bush. Here’s Krugman on an October 12th edition of “Squawk Box”, just about a year ago, via the Business and Media Institute.

“I was out there – you know we went through a period when a lot of people were worshipping George Bush – if you can say that,” Krugman said. “He had an 80 percent approval rating, people were saying he is wonderful, anyone who criticizes him is unpatriotic and I was saying, ‘No, he’s actually a pretty bad guy. He’s got bad policies and he’s not being honest with us.’”

The reason I laughed when I heard about the rejection of Chicago in the first round, was because like many people, I thought Obama had it in the bag. It never occurred to me that he would travel to Copenhagen with the entourage that included Oprah if the deal had not already been previously sealed. I dreaded the media spectacle of seeing him take the credit, and the inevitable week of media Obamamaniacal hoopla. The rejection was stunning, and as a former Army officer, I was stunned that he would slap the Presidential Seal on the table if there were any chance that the prestige of office could be compromised. Jeremy Haddock explains in The American Thinker.

In the nineteenth century, the Royal Navy would not use its guns in salute unless it was known that the salute would be returned. Even a midshipman in command of a six-oar rowboat with a swivel gun knew this. If it wasn’t certain, a party would be sent ashore to find out the port-admiral’s intentions. An unreciprocated salute was an insufferable insult, so it was far better in cases of doubt to not put the honor of the Service at risk.

Similarly, no serious leader would countenance exposing himself and his country to such an easily avoidable affront, especially by such a snivelling parcel of amateurs, and still expect to command respect in the world. Anybody who caves in to Obama from now on has less beans than a sports panel.

But, unbelievably, it turned out that 2016 was not in the bag! Obama set off on a “take no prisoners” campaign with nothing more than his unexampled hubris, apparently believing that his persona and magnificence would win over a few starstruck IOC cheerleaders. Obama gambled the prestige of the United States on an opportunity to enhance his personal glory if he won. He lost. He can pretend that it is nothing, but unfortunately it is not nothing.

Again, the rejection of Chicago was stunning, and revealed that there was no advance work, no deal-making or diplomacy to insure the vote – only the implicit belief that the Obama charm and charisma would carry the vote. This strikes many of us as incredible; an amazing rookie mistake that reveals a deep misunderstanding of the use and limits of presidential influence, and naivete that is both stunning and alarming. It was the perfect manifestation of the stark observation that had been shouted down and drowned out by the media for the last two years; Obama is a rookie manager with no executive experience, and it shows. It was like laughing while watching the video of the bicycle jumper crash low and into the side of the building; you just know from the onset could end badly, but the confidence, the enthusiasm and the very fact that they’re taping make you think, “surely they’ve worked this out…”. What made it even funnier in this instance was the crowd of his advisers and friends literally gloating in advance about his success (Rahm Emmanuel – “…we’ll make sure they get good seats…“), and the press corps standing by breathlessly waiting for his triumph, and their utter alarm and confusion at the eventual outcome.

Still, I suppose we shouldn’t be laughing.

The chairman of the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was adamant on Thursday that only Democrats take part in the chamber’s effort to merge its two distinct healthcare proposals.

That final product, added Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), would include a strong public option — a provision that’s part of the HELP committee’s plan, but is otherwise absent from the Senate Finance Committee’s forthcoming bill.

“No, this will be a proposal by the Democrats to bring a bill on the floor,” Harkin told reporters during Thursday’s teleconference. “And that’s what I have said before, that the people of this country — I keep saying — the people of this country pretty overwhelmingly elected Barack Obama last fall and to make changes.”

The tone and timbre of the announcement matches almost exactly the sentiments expressed by Rep. Alan Grayson expressed this weekend; basically, “we won the election and this is the way it’s going to be”.  Interesting that they read the election as a mandate to force government health care for all, rather than a backlash against the perceived excesses of the Bush years.  Why read “health care reform” into the election win instead of “Iraq War”, for example?  At any rate, “we won, so there” hardly seems like a solid rationale for ramming the public option through.

An interesting point came up in the article, though, that belies Obama’s claim of even caring about the appearance of bipartisanship, and reveals the Administration’s “bare knuckles” approach to getting their agenda through before the 2010 elections.

“We won’t have a bipartisan bill because the White House stepped in here two weeks ago and demanded that [Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.)] break off his talks with the Republicans,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee’s ranking member, told reporters earlier on Thursday. “I don’t think Senator Baucus wanted to do that. And there was still some very key differences between the two sides.”  

Throughout the entire episode, he kept repeating that the Republicans had no plan or ideas, yet immediately talked over and shouted down any ideas that were put forth and shot out with non-stop ad hominem attacks culminating with this beauty of a tirade. Here’s the transcription by HotAirPundit.

Blitzer: “You did insult Republicans”

Borger: “Every Republican”

Grayson: “No, what the Republicans have been doing is an insult to America, they’ve been dragging their feet, these are foot dragging, knuckle dragging neanderthals who think they can dictate policy to America by being stubborn..

“Being stubborn” in this case is not going along and rubber stamping the Democratic proposal.  He shouted down things like “tort reform” and “portability of policies” and ultimately came back to his central point: “…we had an election, that’s it – and now we have to move ahead in just the way the president wants…”

That is the concept of bipartisan legislation that he clearly put forward, and the fact that no Democratic leader has stepped forward is pretty much a tacit approval of his viewpoint.  

Ironically, the survey purporting that 45,000 Americans die every year as a result of being uninsured, the one that that he felt gave him and Democrats the “absolute moral authority” to move forward and ram legislation through Congress and smear the Republicans as “Neanderthals” was not only biased, but baseless in fact.  The bias? From Brent Baker at newsbusters.org:

Trying to boost the rationale for ObamaCare, Thursday’s CBS Evening News ran two stories from far-left sources, but the network disguised the agenda behind both. Katie Couric announced that “while the debate goes on over the cost of insuring everyone, a new study reveals the cost of not doing it. The Harvard study says nearly 45,000 American deaths every year are linked to a lack of insurance.” Neither she, nor reporter Jim Axelrod, noted that the report was really produced by Physicians for a National Health Program, “the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program.”

And how “scientific” was the study? From Michelle Malkin -  on her readers, Dale, highlights problems with methodology and some limitations that the study recognizes and admits.  How’s this for a disclaimer?

Unmeasured characteristics (i.e., that individuals who place less value on health eschew both health insurance and healthy behaviors) might offer an alternative explanation for our findings.

Wow.  Her reader Kevin points out a major statistic flaw.

There’s another huge misrepresentation about the Harvard study that I haven’t seen reported.

Look at Table 1 on page 3. This is the raw data from the study. Item 2 is the breakdown between those who were insured and those who were uninsured. The last column is the percentage of each group that died. 3.3 % of the uninsured group died. The authors then take the 3.3% figure and interpolate it using census data to GUESS how many people in America die “because” they are uninsured. The word “because” is extremely disingenuous, as there would be no way of knowing if those people would have died with health insurance. And, as you mention in your article – whether any of those people received health insurance or health care before they died.

So this is the study that Rep. Grayson not only used to beat Republicans with, but then went on the floor under the guise of making an apology and whipped it out again…  

Interesting culture that they have going on in the House – where ignorance shouted is moral authority, and arrogance, bullying and name-calling is “bipartisanship”.

Awesome, but there’s no link or clue as to who produced the video or is responsible.  The absence of information, of course, is already driving the conspiracy hounds crazy – check out the comments at the YouTube page.  The phone number at the end is the US Capitol – rings quite a few times before it’s picked up by an operator. 

Via Michelle Malkin

Others have already remarked on this analogy, but I want to add my voice because the parallels to Israel then and America today turn my stomach: I have no problem with any of the substantive criticism of President Obama from the right or left. But something very dangerous is happening. Criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination.

What kind of madness is it that someone would create a poll on Facebook asking respondents, “Should Obama be killed?” The choices were: “No, Maybe, Yes, and Yes if he cuts my health care.” The Secret Service is now investigating. I hope they put the jerk in jail and throw away the key because this is exactly what was being done to Rabin.

Nancy Pelosi drew the same conclusion a week or two ago.  Here’s my take; if a man if deranged enough to concoct a plan to assassinate a president, run a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme or drug and anally rape a 13 year old girl, he probably doesn’t need much help from us.

If the hysteria that surrounded President Bush and the righteous indignation that led the art community and the left to embrace lurid and pornographic films, novels and plays about his assasination did not get madmen riled up,  and if the legitimization of the “9/11 was an inside job” conspiracy fantasies by Hollywood didn’t drive some half-baked left-wing jackass to action, I doubt a Facebook poll is going to have much of an impact.

Unless, of course, you think it’s cause he’s black.

NBC Washington reports that one of the new cast members dropped the “F bomb” during a skit on Saturday night.   It’s been a long time since I’ve even watched Saturday Night Live, and I’m mildly surprised that they’re even on the air.  I was a big fan during the heyday, but I really think that the show took  a serious nose-dive after the departure of Buck Henry. 

I doubt very seriously that the actress will be punished – it’s hard to believe that the whole thing wasn’t staged, especially after the press thatErnie Anastos got after his little slip of the tongue.  What made the Anastos incident funny was that it wasn’t supposed to be a comedy show, and the context, with the whole chicken implication.  That, and the other anchor’s reaction.

Border Patrol Director of Media Relations Lloyd Easterling confirmed this week–as I first reported in my column yesterday–that his agency is planning for a net decrease of 384 agents on the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal 2010, which begins on October 1.
 
A Department of Homeland Security annual performance review updated by the Obama administration on May 7 said the Border Patrol “plans to move several hundred Agents from the Southwest Border to the Northern Border to meet the FY 2010 staffing requirements, with only a small increase in new agents for the Southwest Border in the same year.”

To be fair, I understand that the Canadian border also needs to be secured in order to protect the country from terrorism; the arrest of Zakarias Moussaoui is ample evidence of that point.   The obvious question, though, is whether this is a good time to be cutting assets from the Border Patrol at all – assuming, of course, that we’re serious about curtailing the flow of illegal immigrants and illegal drugs.

I was puzzled when I first saw the video; it never occrured to me that it could be a hoax or a piece of “performance art” as many speculated, as the men doing the arrest were focused, professional, moved with definite purpose and had obviously worked together as a team.   It definitely wasn’t their first time making an arrest, as even their posture and the stances that they took showed professionalism.  My only thought was maybe it was an AWOL arrest or the culmination of a CID (the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division, basically military criminal detectives)  investigation, although it would have been more likely that CID would have been wearing civilian clothes. The arresting officers also had a definite military bearing, were all very much in shape and had issue haircuts.

Interesting reading the reader comments, and contrary to popular belief, the arrests was very effective and efficient – it would have turned into Little Big Horn had they taken the time to handcuff him and treat it as a normal arrest. They were in and out before anybody in the crowd though to do anything other than yell impotently  Regarding the way the driver has his sleeves rolled, only the Army is anal enough to roll the sleeves in a way that the comouflage covers the rolled sleeve.  The Marine Corps, unless they’ve changed recently, just rolls their sleeves up as the one cop did.  Here’s the final word on the story from Ed Morrissey.

Stephen Gutowski gets confirmation from the G-20 Joint Information Center that the men clad in camouflage fatigues are police officers, and that the man was arrested for vandalism.

Here’s a picture of the fatigue-clad cops hanging out.