With the announcement of his rejection of GM and Chrysler's restructuring plans, President Obama effectively becomes the CEO-in-Chief.

Lawrence Kudlow believes we may be seeing the beginning of an era of government controlled business. If so, we will also see an era of economic stagnation.

Europe's Obama mania is on the wane.

Only 19 months to go before we get a chance to reject this political course by electing Republicans back into power in Congress.

The people who run the government entity that insures pension funds changed the way they invest their money, putting more into stocks, just before the crash. Oops.

President Obama will announce his auto company bailout plan today, and as part of the festivities he has already fired the C.E.O. of General Motors. I don't know about you but, as a taxpayer, I don't want to own any auto companies. Then again, I voted for McCain.

Glenn Beck's new show on Fox television is getting a lot of attention, including this piece in today's New York Times. I've haven't watched the show as of yet, although I have seen him a few times on his CNN gig, and I have listened to him on his radio show quite a bit over the years. He is a very talented guy.

Jonathan Chait has this piece in The New Republic on why the Democrats can't govern.

Reuel Marc Gerecht has this piece in The Weekly Standard on why the Obama foreign policy is a return to weakness.

Reading both pieces, I am reminded more and more of the days of Jimmy Carter, an outsider who came into Washington riding a wave of hope and change, whose wave crashed into the rocks of economic malaise, politics-as-usual inside a Democratic Congress, and the harsh realities of international relations.

Kapitulieren? Nein!

Is the latest bailout law unconstitutional?

Unconstitutional or not, all the money being spent, and all that is in the pipeline, will bury our children and grandchildren in a mountain of debt.

On the Right (more or less) Ralph Peters is highly critical of the new strategy for winning the war in Afghanistan announced yesterday by President Obama.

On the Left (definitely) Tom Hayden hates the plan as well, but for very different reasons.

Peter Bergen believes Aghanistan's "Graveyard of Empires" reputation is overblown.

Boston radio legend Larry Glick has died. Like so many New Englanders, I grew up listening to Larry Glick on WBZ-AM whenever I stayed up late or woke up really early. In later years, when I started at WHDH-AM in 1989 (where Larry had gone after leaving WBZ), I got the chance to meet him, I even ran the board for one of his shows (when they put Larry on during middays, which was an unmitigated disaster). He was always a gentleman, on and off the air.

Ralph Peters writes about the problems in Mexico, and how the U.S. might improve the situation.

As President Obama, in the face of the threat posed by a Taliban that has united it's Afghan and Pakistani elements, has a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan. David Brooks, recently returned from that country, believes it is a war that can be won.

A new study casts doubt on the efficacy of drugs to treat ADHD.

John Podhoretz once again admonishes Hollywood for their inability to understand that movies which portray America or Americans as the bad guys are doomed to fail at the box office.

U.S. officials say it was Israeli jets that bombed a convoy in Sudan back in January. Apparently, the Israelis believed the convoy consisted of an arms shipment from the Iranians that was intended for Hamas in Gaza.

Some people are unhappy about the prospect of President Obama speaking at Notre Dame.

Paul Krugman is just unhappy.

The North Koreans are preparing for their "satellite" launch. Duck and cover, anyone?

Daniel Hannan, an Englishman who is a member of the European Parliament, blasts British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and his speech goes viral on the Internet.

The New Hampshire House votes to end the state's death penalty. They have done this before, even when the body had a Republican majority, and have seen their efforts fail, and I suspect they will fail this time as well. As for me, I have consistently opposed the New Hampshire death penalty law for two reasons. One, it discriminates by valuing some lives more than others. The law only applies to the killing of certain classes of people, like law enforcement officers. I very much value law enforcement officers in general (my father is a retired police officer, and my older brother is still working as one), but I do not believe their lives are more valuable than yours or mine. If we are to have a death penalty, it should apply to the murder of anyone, depending on the circumstances of the murder, not the occupation of the victim. Two, the state of New Hampshire has been unwilling to execute anyone since 1939. If we are unwilling to use a penalty, why do we carry it on the books? It would seem to me that the very fact of it's disuse would obviate any deterrent effect. So, let's just not bother with it unless we are willing to broaden the law to include victims regardless of occupation and social status and actually carry out the sentence in a timely manner.

Noted environmentalist Bill McKibben writes about efforts to install scrubbers on a New Hampshire coal-fired power plant. McKibben opposes the efforts, because he wants these plants shut down anyway.

Here is a must-read piece that puts the who greenhouse gas emissions issue into it's proper perspective. Essentially, the author of the piece, who is an environmentalist, states what so many on his side of the issue are unwilling to state, which is that the only way we will really diminish global greenhouse gas emissions is to put the brakes on global economic development. More poverty, less greenhouse gas emissions, more prosperity, more greenhouse gas emissions. That, of course, is why the new global warming treaty, which will replace the Kyoto Accords, will be an even bigger bunch of lies than the old treaty. Politicians who are democratically elected will not take steps to hinder economic growth. If they do, they will be turned out of office. Rulers of countries who are not democratically elected (or are kept in their seats through sham elections) will not take steps to hinder their economic growth, either, because they will not want to increase dissent, and possibly find themselves staring at the modern day equivalent of peasants with pitchforks at the palace gates.

OK, now that I have pretty much acquiesced to the probability of disastrous global warming (assuming the theory is correct, which it may not be) which will not be addressed by global leaders, and I have accepted the fact that global leaders will probably screw the pooch on the global financial crisis, which may lead us into the next Great Depression, I am now faced with the possibility of a massive solar storm, perhaps as soon as 2012, that, according to this article about a recently released NASA report, will devastate our electrical grid, leading to chaos, starvation, and potentially a million American deaths. Hmmm...doesn't the Mayan calendar predict the end of the world in 2012?

Would Natasha Richardson have lived if she'd been skiing at an American resort, rather than a Canadian one? This article examines how she might have fared better under American, rather than Canadian, healthcare.

E.J. Dionne speaks the truth when he writes that our politicians, if they are going to spend the oodles of money they seem about to spend, are going to have to raise taxes to pay for it all, if they are also serious about cutting the size of the deficit. Of course, they're not really serious about cutting the deficit.

Ralph Peters gives President Obama a failing grade in Foreign Policy 101.

An A.I.G. executive who received a big bonus, over $700,000 after taxes, resigns from the company with this letter, published today in The New York Times. While it is difficult for me, having lost my job due to the global financial meltdown, to have any sympathy for him, I do sympathise. He, like many other executives at that company, did not participate in the financial shenanigans that caused the trouble (and lost him a lot of money, as well, in stock and deferred compensation), yet he is being vilified by politicians who also were part of the problem, yet they will never admit to it, or be punished for it. By resigning, and promising to donate his bonus to charity, he is doing exactly what I would do in his situation. I congratulate him for taking a stand, and I congratulate The New York Times for publishing the letter, which sheds some light on the political venality that surrounds the entire sorry mess.

A member of Congress has proposed a bailout bill for newspapers that would allow them to operate with subsidies as a non-profit. I don't think the bill will pass, and if it passes, I don't think it will do much good.

Is the regime in North Korea crumbling? If it does collapse, it would be very bad news for China, South Korea, and the rest of the region, at least in the short term, but it would be good news for the people of Korea in the long run.

A look back at the 1966 off-year elections, which turned out to give the first indications that the old New Deal Democratic coalition was beginning to falter.

As long as I can remember the idea that one of the possible ways humanity could destroy itself was through overpopulation. Remember the Sci-Fi classic Soylent Green? Well, it appears now that some serious people are recognizing that humanity is now being threatened by depopulation, rather than overpopulation. I remember first reading about this possibility from Ben Wattenberg, who has written several books on the subject, including Fewer and The Birth Dearth. While Wattenberg took a lot of heat when he first began proposing his theory about population decline more than ten years ago, the numbers seem more and more to bear out his position.

Of course, if we would just cut down on our consumption of red meat, more of us might live longer. Since death awaits me no matter what I do, I think I will continue to enjoy my steaks and burgers.

A Chinese government official is now calling for the dollar to be replaced as the world's reserve currency. I am calling for the replacement of the government of China with one more representative of it's people.

Mort Zuckerman says we are wasting our time trying to talk to the people who run Iran. I agree.

Richard Cohen says it continues to be business as usual up on Capitol Hill. Why anyone expected anything different I just cannot understand.

Christopher Buckley bemoans the lack of seriousness in Washington. Why anyone expected anything different I just cannot understand.

The Obama Administration announces a new plan that would use government money to entice private investors into the marketplace for the so-called "toxic assets" that are gumming up the financial works. Treasury Secretary Geithner explains the plan in this op-ed piece.

Paul Krugman doesn't like the plan.

Meanwhile, trade barriers are on the rise as politicians act with the same instincts that caused their ancestors to do similar things after the 1929 crash.

In Sweden, a right-wing government refuses to bail out Saab, much to the chagrin of the folks who depend on the automaker for their livelihoods. A prediction...Sweden's right-wing government (recently installed because of the failures of their socialist predecessors) will be turned out in the next election. Meanwhile, left-wing governments in America and Britain will also be turned out at the next opportunity. Right-wing/left-wing distinctions usually don't matter much to the great mass of voters. They only know whether it appears that the gears are turning properly, or not. If not, they "throw the bums out", irrespective of the ideological bent of the bums.

Before we throw our bums out, will we create a system more closely resembling Europe's? I hope not.

Robert J. Samuelson wonders whether capitalism can survive the present crisis. I think it will, since I believe that capitalism is merely an expression of the core of human nature, which is to compete with one another for resources in order to aggregate wealth and power, however it is measured.

Charlie Cook writes about some polling data that shows independent voters heading back toward the GOP.

This doesn't surprise me, as day after day President Obama presents evidence that he is weak, incompetent, and much farther to the Left than the mainstream of Americans.

David Warren writes about Obama's ideological disconnect.

Bill Kristol writes about Obama's disgraceful Iran message, which only underscores Obama's weakness.

Eleanor Clift who, unlike Warren and Kristol, is an Obama supporter, writes about the disturbing A.I.G. bonus mess, which seems to have originated in a loophole inserted into the bailout bill by Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, who says he was pressured into doing so by administration officials.

The Congressional Budget Office has scored the President's budget, and because they don't assume a rosy economic growth forecast as the President does, they assume much larger deficits.

Amir Taheri writes about the reasons behind Russia's military modernization plan.

Is there a market-based solution to Medicare's problems?

Finally, the economist James K. Galbraith has this piece in The Washington Monthly which gives his view of the extent of our current economic crisis, and what needs to be done about it. Galbraith believes the President and his people haven't realized the extent of the crisis, and are not putting the policies in place needed to get us out of this mess. Galbraith's solutions would involve a truly massive expansion of government through public works plans and increasing Social security and Medicare benefits. Read it anyway, as I think Galbraith has some valid points about the origins and extent of the crisis.

The brilliant men and women who make up the United State House of Representatives, never at a loss when it comes to sensing a foul public mood and a desire to ferret out some scapegoats, have passed a bill that would retroactively tax any bonuses received by employees at firms which have accepted $5 billion or more in taxpayer bailout money, so long as the employee's total taxable income exceeds $250,000 for the year. The tax, which would need to pass the United States Senate and be signed by the President to become law, would apply only to bonuses awarded this calendar year. The bill is, of course, an effort to "do something" about the bonuses awarded to employees of A.I.G., at least some of whom were responsible for getting the company into it's dire condition, and many of whom are no longer even with the company. Members of Congress do know, however, that you can't pass a tax bill just aimed at employees of one company, which is why it is directed at employees of any company that has taken bailout money. This is all very good politics, but lousy public policy, as Charles Krauthammer explains in this piece.



The public outcry against the A.I.G. bonuses has led to serious security concerns for A.I.G. management, who now find themselves and their fellow employees as targets for the wrath and scorn of a public genuinely suffering from the economic downturn, and little disposed to have much sympathy for wealthy people who are perceived to be the cause of the problem. I am reminded of the Kulaks, a land-owning set of peasants who were made out as scapegoats by the Bolsheviks in Russia during and after the Russian Revolution. They were treated rather harshly, as I recall.

Michael Gerson and Michael Kinsley each have thoughts about the bonuses, and the response to them.

Terence Cochrane, though, gets more to the point. Do the political shenanigans of our ruling class really mean the end of America, at least as we know it?

Peggy Noonan also wonders about President Obama. Is he a hedgehog, a fox, or neither?

Yesterday, the Federal Reserve announced that it was adding almost $1 trillion into the economy in a move designed to get the gears greased enough to put the economic engine back into forward motion.

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann explain why the move, which amounts to the Fed giving banks and other lending institutions significant lines of credit, as well as buying up long term Treasury bills, is a perilous one.

Think of a parking garage filled with cars. The cars' owners leave them in the garage, because it's a bad day with rain and snow and conditions aren't suitable for driving. Similarly, banks and consumers leave their money in the vault at the Fed or in their bank accounts or under the mattress.

When conditions improve, though, all those metaphorical cars will suddenly be taken out for a drive. All at once. And a traffic jam of monumental proportion will ensue.

When everybody starts spending the money they're now leaving in vaults and mattresses, way too much money will be chasing way too few goods and services. Double-digit inflation will return to America.

Read the whole thing.

James Hansen, the NASA scientist who is largely responsible for pushing the global warming theory believes that democracy is not working in the fight against climate change by limiting carbon emissions. He is quite right. People will not vote for politicians who want to raise their taxes, limit their choices, or put regulations in place that cause the businesses that employ them to contract, if not go out of business entirely. Unfortunately for Mr. Hansen, totalitarian regimes won't do much better, since they will not put policies into place that will cause their economies to grow more slowly, or shrink, due to the negative reaction from their peoples that would inevitably ensue. If Mr. Hansen's theory is correct, then the world will warm substantially during the course of this century as carbon emissions increase due to the growing, carbon fuel-based economies of all the nations of the Earth. We will only be saved by one of two things. Either new technologies will be invented that will allow us to move away from carbon fuels (oil, natural gas, coal) and move toward fuels that do not emit much in the way of global warming gases, or the theory is incorrect, and the world will not warm up that much, and may even cool down (as it appears to be doing over these last two years).

Nouriel Roubini believes the entire country was participating in a Ponzi scheme over these last 15 to 20 years, not just Mr. Madoff and his victims.

Peter Brookes says Russia has hit the re-set button when it comes to modernizing their military machine.

The President, no doubt stung by the firestorm he created, decides to scrap a policy that would have charged veteran's for the care they receive at VA hospitals. I am absolutely astounded by the political stupidity of those around the President who even allowed this to become an issue, and I wonder at the President's political acumen, as well. Is there no one in the White House who could have foreseen this controversy, and headed it off at the pass? Incompetence is the word that comes to mind.

There is a feeling growing across the land, I see it now every day in op-ed pieces far and wide, and I hear it from people who, upon seeing me, ask me how I think Obama is doing, that the new President is out of his depth. Here is another piece, this one from The Telegraph in the UK, from a Brit, in New York on St. Patrick's Day, who wonders if Obama might not be able to fix what ails us.

In The New York Times, Thomas Friedman writes about the furor surrounding those A.I.G. bonuses, and about what it will take for the President to begin fixing our ailing financial system. Essentially, the President needs political capital, and he seems to be letting that capital slip through his fingers, a little every day.

Noemie Emery, writing in The San Francisco Chronicle, compares the Obama track record to the dire predictions concerning the alleged incompetence of Sarah Palin. At least John McCain and Sarah Palin each had some experience running something other than a political campaign.

Even Liberal columnists are getting concerned, as Harold Meyerson, writing in The Washington Post, finds fault with Obama's Treasury Secretary.

The President might want to think twice about expanding U.S. military operations into Baluchistan, which is a province of Pakistan that our forces have, so far, avoided, and where members of the Taliban seem to be operating with impunity. Why should he think twice? Because Pakistan is unstable, and has nuclear weapons. Military operations inside Pakistani territory without the consent of their government is a violation of their sovereignty and, while I am an advocate of taking the war to the enemy, I am also an advocate of being clear when it comes to fighting wars (which is why I am still upset that President Bush didn't ask for a Declaration of War from Congress in 2001). Sometimes recognizing the legal niceties isn't just about being nice.

We all recognize by now that the Internet is killing newspapers, but is it also killing the concept of a fair trial by jury?

Another big city newspaper bites the dust. This time it's The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which has morphed into an online only news outlet. Not everyone is crying over it, however, with at least one reader who believes it wasn't just the Internet that killed it. As a person who has spent my entire adult life in the media, I can only tell you that the old business model no longer works, not just for newspapers, but for radio and television stations as well. You simply cannot make enough money from advertising (and, in the case of newspapers, that includes classified advertising) to cover your costs, as those ad dollars are shifting, along with the audience, to online outlets. The online outlets, born as they are in an environment where so much content is offered to the audience for free, are organizations with low overheads. Newspapers are not. So, I expect this trend to continue. Say goodbye, eventually, to newspapers. Over-the-air radio and TV will hang on longer, but they may also be on their way out.

Peter Canellos, referring to Jon Stewart's lashing of Jim Cramer on Comedy Central the other night, says the mainstream media needs to return to it's ideals. Canellos seems to lack a complete understanding of the history of the media, as those ideals have been, and still are, fungible, based on the fact that like so many other American institutions, the outlets exist, and are kept in existence, to make money.

Richard Cohen, also referring to the Cramer-Stewart drama, says Stewart shouldn't blame Cramer or CNBC for missing the story of the financial shenanigans that would eventually lead to the collapse, since even the people who ran the big institutions didn't know what they were doing.

President Obama and his people are looking for a way to cancel those A.I.G. bonuses.

The head of the American Legion is disappointed after a meeting with the President over a proposal that would allow the VA to charge the private insurers of veterans for care they administer.

Amir Taheri believes America's allies are disappointed with the early efforts of the Obama Administration, and may be on the verge of panic.

Israel is inching closer to a right-wing government.

Shelby Steele has this interesting piece on why conservatives cannot win over minorities in America.

Thomas Sowell has this piece on the brewing civil war inside the GOP.

Perhaps our biggest problem is not that we have elected a good, old-fashioned Liberal as our President. Perhaps our biggest problem is that we have elected an incompetent Liberal as our President.

This incompetence is especially worrisome as we face the fear, if not yet the reality, of Great Depression II.

At least our people in Washington are doing something, which is more than can be said for the leaders in Europe.

Those European leaders, by the way, who called on America to close the detention facility for terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, are probably not going to lift a finger to help us deal with the bad guys upon closing the facility.

Outrage grows over the use of bailout money by the executives at insurance giant A.I.G., including the use of many millions of that money for bonuses for the very executives whose bad decisions got them, and us, into the mess we are in.

Massachusetts officials continue to wrestle with the contradictions that will, in the end, make their universal health plan fail (unless they make significant changes).

Jay Cost has a response to Ruy Teixeira's prediction of a growing "Progressive" America.

The actor and activist Ron Silver has died at age 62. I always liked his work in films like Reversal of Fortune, and I met him once during the New Hampshire primary campaign in 1996. By all accounts, he was a good guy and a patriotic American who thought long and hard about the issues facing the country. While he started his career as an activist on the solidly Liberal side of the equation, he became a bit more Conservative over the years, backing George W. Bush for reelection in 2004, mainly due to Bush's stance on fighting terrorism. He will be missed.

The Japanese government is warning the North Koreans they may shoot down that North Korean "satellite" if the Japanese deem it a threat to their territory. Since the North Koreans have already said such an act would be an act of war, this could get interesting.

A Russian general says Venezuela and Cuba could provide bases for Russian long-range bombers. Since they don't really need such bases (these bombers are not "long range" for nothing), this may be just another effort to try and rattle the neophytes now running our government.

Speaking of such efforts, the number one man in China says he is "worried" about the security of American treasuries, since China owns so many of them. My guess is this is either an honest expression of worry, or an effort to rattle the neophytes running our government. Since it would be just as disastrous for the Chinese if our treasuries or the dollar collapsed in value as it would be for us, I suspect this is juts another effort to "test" Obama. Expect more such tests in the future.

But, it does appear that the Obama people are learning. Now that they presumably are all briefed up on the facts about the people we are holding down at "Gitmo", they seem reluctant to change the Bush policies concerning them. Still, they made campaign promises, so they need to at least appear to be doing something. But it all seems so much like just a P.R. effort, as the announcement made yesterday that the administration would no longer use the term "enemy combatant". Sounds bad, doesn't it? But if you read on you'll find that President Obama is essentially reserving to himself the same right to detain the bad guys as the evil George W. Bush did. I guess President Obama is beginning to realize that when you're sitting in the Oval Office, you're responsible for protecting the American people, even if it means doing some morally ambiguous things to some unsavory people. Reality sucks, eh?

Bill Kristol sees opportunities for the Republicans in the missteps and poor policy choices of the new administration.

President Obama's decision to reverse the Bush policy on stem cell research is not surprising, given the fact that he made the policy a campaign issue, and his left-wing inclinations certainly pointed in that direction. Still, his decision has at least one person who supported lifting the ban, Charles Krauthammer, angry. Krauthammer was even invited to the bill signing ceremony, but declined. Why was Krauthammer so ticked off by the change?

I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn. I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research -- a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.

On this, Obama has nothing to say. He leaves it entirely to the scientists. This is more than moral abdication. It is acquiescence to the mystique of "science" and its inherent moral benevolence. How anyone as sophisticated as Obama can believe this within living memory of Mengele and Tuskegee and the fake (and coercive) South Korean stem cell research is hard to fathom.

Read the whole thing. Like Krauthammer, I am not religious, but I also believe that we cannot simply allow scientists to do their thing without any kind of lines drawn, except the one's they draw themselves. The World War I French Premier Clemenceau once said that "war is too important to be left to the generals". Well, science is too important to be left solely to the scientists.

Ellen Goodman points out that there are over a half-million "leftover" embryos sitting in freezers in fertility clinics. I agree with Krauthammer that these embryos, created for the purpose of allowing women who cannot conceive naturally to get a shot at motherhood, are the only ones that should be used for research, with the permission of the couple who created them.

A libel ruling against Staples has some in the media concerned about their own First Amendment rights.

John Bolton believes the Obama foreign policy team is taking an anti-Israel tack.

In today's New York Times, two pieces with very different takes on what to do next in Afghanistan. Leslie Gelb says we need to withdraw our troops, since defeating the Taliban is impossible. Max Boot, Frederick Kagan and Kimberly Kagan believe that the war can and will be won, and that a well though out and directed surge will do the trick.

Another conservative columnist discovers that Obama really is a partisan liberal.

Jew hatred is on the march again all over Europe, even in places that seem so bucolic in our imaginations, places like Sweden.

Robert Kuttner compares our current economic crisis, which he calls "The Great Collapse", to the Great Depression, and advocates radical solutions to address the problem. In the end, his characterization of the crisis may be the correct one, but President Obama does not seem ready yet to undertake the radical solutions Kuttner and others are proposing.

Ralph Peters, increasingly disheartened by the way in which Islamist terrorism is being improperly characterized by our Washington elites, asks us to just listen to what the terrorists say about themselves.

China tests the new administration, according to Peter Brookes, and the administration fails the test.

George Will sees the President and his people in Washington as talking a good game, but not showing the competence to win the game, at least not yet.

If demography is destiny, then America is destined to become more politically "progressive", at least according to Ruy Texeira.

France rejoins NATO as a full, military member, more than 40 years after Charles DeGaulle pulled them out. Now, if only we could figure out NATO's purpose in the post-Cold War world.

It's only a matter of time before we see a major American city without a newspaper. Then we will see how the need for news is met, in a way that can do the job and make money, which to say is whether or not we can do it in the American way.

Another Obama appointment drops out, but this one blames the "Israel lobby" on his way out the door.

Perhaps it is just another little footnote to mankind's oldest hatred.

Meanwhile, radical Muslims in Britain protest the return of British soldiers from their deployment in Afghanistan. I once believed in the phrase, "there will always be an England", but now I'm beginning to wonder.

Despite yesterday's big gain in the stock market, the economic crisis continues, which Tom Friedman in The New York Times writes about as a test for President Obama. He says it is August, 1914, December 8, 1941, September 12, 2001, meaning that we are in the midst of a historical crisis. Yet, President Obama hasn't yest grasped that fact. I hope he does so soon.

More on the lies, damned lies, and statistics in the President's budget.

A chimp makes a plan to throw rocks at those leering humans. So, the chimp can think. Does this mean that to hold him in a cage is immoral?

A terrorist makes a plan to kill Americans. He is captured. The U.S. government wants to put him on trial, but not reveal everything it knows, lest the terrorists find out information that would help them kill Americans. American judges say the government needs to reveal all. Does this mean we need to stop taking terrorists prisoner?

"Dr. Doom" says the recession will last at least 36 more months.

Pat Buchanan and I are thinking alike as he also compares Obama to LBJ.

Is evangelical Christianity on the verge of collapse?

A former CNN Spanish-language reporter is now a Communist Party candidate in El Salvador.

The Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq snubs the Grand Ayatollah of Iran.

WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?

So, who is Barack Obama? All the evidence we needed to form an opinion was right in front of us all along but, as is so often the case in these kinds of things, most people refused to believe it. Barack Obama is a man who has spent his life looking for his identity, and failing to find it. This is not surprising, born as he was from the union of an African student whose wanderlust led him to the U.S. and, almost as quickly, led him away again, and a Kansan whose wanderlust led her to Indonesia and, to her credit, led her to decide to allow her only child to go to Hawaii to be raised by her more grounded parents.

Obama's superior intellect, and his good fortune at being raised by those grandparents, got him an elite education. Still, he was not part of any world in particular,not a Black African, or an African-American, or a white Kansan, or an Indonesian, or a Hawaiian, but part of all of those things.

It was only when he got to Chicago, became a community organizer, wooed and won Michelle Robinson, became a part of Jeremiah Wright's church, that he truly found an identity. It is the identity of a left-wing, African-American, Chicago politician. He has more of an elite education than most of the other folks in that category, and certainly more of an exotic background, but he made a conscious decision to become a part of that crowd. That decision, of course, had consequences. As he grew into that role he, no doubt, accepted the ideological and political assumptions of the group. He became part of the Democratic machine politics of Chicago, which meant that he needed to say, do, and think certain things to get along. Like all machine politicians, then, it is difficult to clearly know what he really believes, as he will throw anyone under the bus who gets in his way (see Rev. Wright, for example).

This is what so many fail to understand. All the rhetoric about "hope and change" is just that...rhetoric to win an election. Everything he has done so far underscores that point. Yet, like all politicians, he does have goals. Knowing what they really are is the trick. My best guess is that Barack Obama wants to be a transformative figure in American history (what a way to assert an identity). Like FDR and LBJ, he wants to transform American society. That is why he seems less able to focus on the economic crisis. His desire to make the transformation happen is getting in the way of his ability to see the crisis and react to it. This is not surprising, given the fact that he has never run any organization of any size, except a campaign, which means he has to learn how to compartmentalize and delegate on a grand scale (this ability, by the way, is one of the reasons why FDR and Reagan were successful, as both had the ability to keep the big picture in mind at all times). FDR had experience as Governor of New York and LBJ as Senate Majority Leader (and Reagan as Governor of California and head of the Screen Actor's Guild). Obama has no comparable experience.

Obama is learning on the job. He is trying to make changes to American society while also maintaining his popularity so as to assure his reelection. Facing a global economic crisis, which could quickly turn into a crisis of war and unrest on a larger scale than anything we are seeing today, he is totally unprepared by experience, education and inclination to provide the leadership necessary to get us out of this fix. FDR, who was better qualified and could see the larger picture with greater clarity, was also given time by the American people to learn the ropes and profit from his mistakes. LBJ, who was elected by a landslide in 1964 due to a combination of sympathy for the legacy of a slain President and the radical caricature created of his opponent in the public mind, was so thoroughly repudiated by 1968 that he withdrew from consideration for reelection before barely any votes were cast. I expect the repudiation of Obama to begin in 2010. Much damage will be done before he is sent packing in 2012, a fact we will have to live with for decades to come.

As I watch the snow fall outside my window, I am given cause to ask the same question asked by Jeff Jacoby in his most recent column, "where's global warming"? A group of global warming skeptics are gathering to talk about it. They will certainly be ridiculed by the smart people in the media.

New England continues to lead the nation in becoming more and more secular.

Shoot down our satellite, and it's war, say the North Koreans. Just another in a very long line of bellicose statements issued by the world's most repressive, and inscrutable, government.

President Obama is "overwhelmed", which might explain the diplomatic snubs felt by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on his recent visit, or it might be that Obama really doesn't care much for the "special relationship".

Still, there is reason for him to be overwhelmed (and it's not just that he is simply not experienced at running anything, except a political campaign). He is facing a global recession, the biggest since WWII, according to the World Bank.

Paul Krugman believes Obama doesn't understand the depth of the problem, which is why he hasn't responded with a stimulus of the proper scale.

Robert Samuelson believes Obama is just another lying politician (although those are my words, not his), because his budget contains the same kind of obfuscation that all Presidents have used at least since JFK.

The arbiters of elite opinion got Obama wrong, according to this piece, when they asserted he was some kind of moderate.

Bob Zelnick writes about efforts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Even if Democrats in Congress succeed in getting something passed, and even if the President signs it, I doubt it would pass constitutional muster under present conditions.

Micahel Barone wonders if there is a tax tipping point at forty percent.

Despite government efforts, the creative destruction that is the capitalist system continues, although it is small comfort to those who are dislocated during the destructive phase.

More evidence that health care reform will be tough sledding for all involved. Of course, that might be a good thing, as health care reform in other countries hasn't necessarily produced an outcome that Americans would accept for themselves.

As anyone who knows John McCain could have told you, he doesn't give up, and he doesn't go away.

Al Franken and Norm Coleman won't give up or go away, either, and the Minnesota Supreme Court says Franken can't be certified the winner until the Coleman lawsuit works itself through the courts. That's a temporary victory for Coleman, although I suspect that, in the end, Franken will be seated in the U.S. Senate.

More bad news for the economy as the U.S. unemployment rate jumped to 8.1% in February. I'm sorry to say that I was one of those whose job disappeared that month, so I have a lot of company (which, unfortunately, doesn't make me feel any better about it).

Jim Cramer, who finds himself now a part of the Obama opposition, defends himself.

Paul Krugman, who is ideologically on the same side as the President, is unhappy with what he calls the President's "dithering".

David Brooks writes about how the folks inside the White House responded to his criticism of the budget.

Steve Forbes says two simple regulatory changes could make a huge difference in turning around our financial crisis.

Sally Pipes reveals health care myths that reformers continue to use in their efforts to bring universal, taxpayer-funded health insurance to Americans.

Across the pond, Tim Reid says President Obama is betting the farm in a $4 trillion poker game. If he wins, start putting his face on Mt. Rushmore. If he loses, America becomes just another bankrupt banana republic, without the bananas.

Charles Krauthammer marvels at Obama's radical agenda.

Fred Barnes sees the Obama agenda having an influence on those moderates who supported the President, and now are beginning to believe that Obama is not one of them. They were warned, of course.

My only hope politically now for the country is that President Obama's plans are seen as such a failure by November, 2010 that the Democrats are massacred (electorally speaking, of course) and the GOP re-takes the House and Senate. Much damage will have been done by then, no doubt, but at least no more can be done thereafter. By 2012, under that scenario, if the GOP can find a good candidate, we can send Mr. Obama back to Illinois. A lot of ifs, I know, but it's the best I can hope for at this juncture.

Nouriel Roubini, who correctly predicted the economic collapse, believes that the U.S. financial system is effectively insolvent. He also believes that we may be headed for what he calls an "L shaped depression" rather than a "U shaped recession". It is very bad news, indeed, if he is correct.

President Obama's "soak-the-rich" plan isn't going to help.

The latest information about the global economy is pretty sobering, and backs up Roubini's claims.

The economic crisis is reviving memories of Messrs. Smoot and Hawley. Just as President Obama and the Democrats are trying to bring us Socialism without calling it by it's true name, leaders around the world will bring us Protectionism, although it will be called by many other names.

For good measure, let's throw in two international wild cards. Will Israel attack Iran to prevent the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons? Will North Korea collapse? Either event would be terribly unsettling, and I predict both will happen.

John O'Sullivan describes a Europe now worrying about the dark possibilities that might be generated by the current economic crisis.

Ralph Peters points out, correctly in my estimation, that the crisis will be measured not by sterile economic indicators but by the number of corpses it produces.

While it is true that President Obama inherited the economic crisis (and I would argue that the stock market crash in October and the credit freeze that went along with it were the major reasons why Obama defeated McCain) some people are arguing that his policies are making things worse.

Bill Kristol sees it, too, and Michael Gerson believes the policies are a revelation to all those who thought Obama was a moderate.

A man who has made his career watching financial markets, CNBC's Charlie Gasparino, says that even Obama supporters on Wall Street are beginning to criticize his early efforts as being counter-productive. If you read the comments section after the article, you'll find very little sympathy for the folks on Wall Street who are widely believed to be the people responsible for our current troubles. This is why President Obama will maintain a solid level of public support for some time to come. That support will wane, however, when his programs fail to generate the economic growth his budget forecast predicts. A year from now, when we are still mired in the recession, when unemployment is still high, when taxes and budget deficits are higher, the Wall Street complainers will have lots more company (if not more sympathy).

Christopher Buckley, who supported President Obama, is also worrying about those deficits and the economic growth projections in Obama's budget.

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann point out that one of the more damaging aspects of the Obama policies is the plan to raise taxes on "the rich", that is, those people who make $250,000 a year or more. Last I checked, I've never been employed by someone who made less than that. So, to help economic growth, we're going to raise the expenses of everyone who creates jobs (except, of course, government jobs). Well, if I'm right, it won't work. If I'm wrong, then it's Socialism, now and forever.

In a more general commentary on our times, Richard Cohen points out that history has made a comeback, which will be difficult for our young people to grasp. I've been thinking along the same lines a lot lately. From the end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871 to the beginning of World War I in August, 1914, the people of Europe (and they were the dominant political and economic force in the world at the time) thought they had ended "history". No more wars (the wars against the natives of Africa and Asia waged by European Imperial powers didn't count), no great economic, social or religious upheavals, rising prosperity, improved technologies and medicines, and so on. They all knew that a war would eventually break out between some or all of the Great Powers, but they thought it would be short, if violent, and the world they knew would simply pick up and move on. An observer in one of the great European capitals in the Summer of 1914 would never have guessed that four years later much of Europe would be financially prostrate, parts of France would look like the surface of the moon, millions would be dead, the royal houses of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia (as well as several other smaller states) would be in exile or dead, that ideologies which would seek to sweep away the old political, social and religious systems would be loose upon the land. No, if you told them the future they would have cast you aside as a raving madman. Cohen's piece speaks to that period, and rightly points out that history is now roaring back in our own time. Can this recession become a depression? Can the recent economic upheaval lead to war? Can new, and terrifying, ideologies be born in the tumult that results? Yes, it can.

Paul Harvey, 1918-2009, R.I.P.

The Massachusetts healthcare reform plan is a failure, at least according to this doctor.

A left-winger who wants America to fail in Iraq says Rush Limbaugh is justified in wanting to see Barack Obama's economic policies fail.

We're getting out of Iraq. No, we're not.

Insurance giant AIG will get even more taxpayer money.

The economic crisis is threatening to split Europe, and it is causing instability in numerous places, including Ukraine. Meanwhile, in Japan they have more problems than just the economic crisis.

Robert J. Samuelson has an idea to spur home sales.

America is in denial about the realities of prostitution.