Rogue Government I: At Pajamas Media, Patrick Richardson quotes South Carolina Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy’s assessment of Eric Holder’s role in Operation Fast and Furious/Gunwalker:

As things started to go south, I think it’s impossible to conceive he wasn’t briefed in on it.

Another grim related stat, via USA Today:

… congressional investigators estimate that … (just one of the Mexican cartels’ straw purchasers bought) at least 720 firearms, 157 of which fell into the hands of Mexican drug cartel enforcers or other criminals on both sides of the U.S.-Mexican border.

… “ATF agents allowed weapons to be provided to individuals whom they knew would traffic them to members of Mexican drug-trafficking organizations,” ATF Supervisory Special Agent Peter Forcelli recently told members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

___________________________________________________

Rogue Government II: Meanwhile, the Justice Department “is opposing a routine motion by the family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry to qualify as crime victims in the eyes of the court.” The jaw-dropping reasoning:

However in this case, U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke argues because the family was not “directly or proximately harmed” by the illegal purchase of the murder weapon, it does not meet the definition of “crime victim” in the Avila case. Burke claims the victim of the Avila’s gun purchases, “is not any particular person, but society in general.”

You see, Terry is dead because “society” (i.e., the nation’s Constitution) allows citizens to own guns, not because the government allowed cartels to get their hands on the weapon(s) which killed Terry.

___________________________________________________

Rogue Government III: “SEC makes S&P downgrade inquiries” (link may require sign-in) –

The Securities and Exchange Commission has asked credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s to disclose who within its ranks knew of its decision to downgrade US debt before it was announced last week, as part of a preliminary look into potential insider trading, people familiar with the matter say.

… the agency is not aware of a leak from an S&P insider, nor was it aware of an aberrational trade.

In other words, it’s a fishing expedition designed to harass.

If the SEC were legitimately worried about insider trading, it would be getting a list of everyone in the White House, at the Treasury Department, and in Congress with access to information about the discussions between S&P and the government which preceded the downgrade. Betcha that’s not happening.

___________________________________________________

Rogue Government IV: Eric Holder’s hires –

• From Hans van Spakovsky — “Every Single One: The Politicized Hiring of Eric Holder’s Voting Section: All sixteen new hires to the Voting Section have far-left resumes — which were only released following a Pajamas Media lawsuit.”
• J. Christin Adams — “America should be appalled at the overwhelmingly politicized backgrounds of Eric Holder’s hires in the Department of Justice Voting Section.”
• Richard Pollock — “Every Single One: The Politicized Hiring of Eric Holder’s Immigration Office; All five new hires to the Justice Department’s immigration office have far-left resumes …”
• von Spakovsky — “Every Single One: The Politicized Hiring of Eric Holder’s Special Litigation Section; All 23 new hires to the Justice Department’s Special Litigation office have far-left resumes …”
• Update, August 17: “Every Single One: The Politicized Hiring of Eric Holder’s Education Section; All 11 new hires to the Justice Department’s Education Section have far-left resumes …”

Context, from the first item listed above: “Holder’s year-long delay before producing these documents — particularly when compared to the almost-instantaneous turnaround by the Bush administration of a virtually identical request by the Boston Globe back in 2006 — also shows how deep politics now runs in the Department.”

From San Marcos, California:

Aug. 14, 2011

A year after Sgt. Jacob Chadwick, 23, was deployed to Iraq with Regimental Combat Team 1, he returned to his home in San Marcos, Calif., only to suffer blinding, week-long headaches: the first sign of his failing kidneys.

Last Sunday, Chadwick underwent a four-and-a-half hour kidney transplant that saved his life. His kidney donor was a fellow Marine, 24-year-old Lt. Patrick Wayland from Midland, Texas, who went into cardiac arrest on Aug. 1 at Pensacola Naval Air Station in Florida.

On Friday, while the Waylands were attending their son’s funeral services, Chadwick was visiting the UC San Diego Medical Center to check on his measured recovery.

The Chadwick family said that they would like the Waylands eventually to make contact.

“What they did was pretty great. A piece of their son is keeping me alive,” Chadwick said. “Eventually, I think they should [get to know the person] who their son’s kidney went to.” …

Go here for the rest of the story.

… if the relatively disengaged 80%-85% of the American people are figuring out that this President is the emptiest suit since, yes, Jimmy Carter, who happens to be the last Democrat who failed to win a second term.

In Minnesota today, on his Magical Misery Tour (Mitt Romney’s peeps are occasionally clever, but their man remains unfit; Update: Sorry Mitt, a FReeper came up with the name on August 8), we heard nothing but excuses:

• His economic “plan,” an attempt to spend us to prosperity, got us out of the recession (no, it didn’t, conditions were there for a recovery a month before he took office). Then it’s been nothing but “bad luck”: the Arab Spring (which has nothing to do with anything), the Japanese tsunami (a problem, but fairly narrow), and the European debt crisis (if we weren’t “leading from behind,” maybe it wouldn’t be a problem).
• Oh, and it’s the Republicans’ recent “spending cuts” which have more recently led to a “debacle.” He must be referring to the $65 billion reduction in projected spending during the next two fiscal years, which haven’t even begun. Even then, there are no cuts as normal people define them, i.e., actual reductions in year-over-year spending.

Later, he decided to lecture automakers on how to run their businesses:

The country’s automakers should ditch their focus on SUVs and trucks in favor of smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, President Obama said Monday.

“You can’t just make money on SUVs and trucks,” Obama said during a town hall forum in Cannon Falls, Minn. “There is a place for SUVs and trucks, but as gas prices keep on going up, you have got to understand the market. People are going to try to save money.”

First off, SUVs and trucks are far more efficient now than they were even five years ago (and no, it’s not because the government forced them to be). Second, well, even with gas at $3.50, it’s clear that buyers still want trucks and SUVs. What in the bleep is wrong with that?

If there’s a tangible idea from this bunch other than “keep spending like we’ve spent already, and even though it’s been a clear failure, hope it somehow works out differently” (while of course, keeping the petal to the metal with oppressive overregulation), I haven’t heard it.

Can we really survive another 17-plus months of this punk?

From the overwhelming stack of unposted stuff (until now) is this item from Matt Cover at CNS News last Wednesday:

HHS: Obamacare-Funded Health Centers for ‘Migrants’ Won’t Check Immigration Status

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on Tuesday that it has awarded $28.8 million to 67 community health centers with funds from the Obamacare health reform law.

Of that $28.8 million, “approximately $8.5 million will be used by 25 New Access Point awardees to target services to migrant and seasonal farm workers,” Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Spokeswoman Judy Andrews told CNSNews.com. HRSA is a part of HHS.

Andrews said that grant recipients will not check the immigration status of people seeking services.

… These Obamacare disbursements seem to contradict a claim President Obama famously made in a nationally televised speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9, 2009.

“The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally,” Obama said then.

When Obama said these words, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted out from the House floor: “You lie!”

Joe Wilson was right. Barack Obama was lying.

When Obamacare was being considered in Congress, the President insisted that the individual mandate wasn’t a tax. He even chided normal lapdog George Stephanopoulos for having the nerve to consult a dictionary for the meaning of “tax.”

Now that Obamacare is in litigation, the government’s core argument has been that it has the power to impose the individual mandate because it is just another tax.

Obama lied again. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Night follows day. The Pope is Catholic.

17 months and five days. Can we make it?

The “must have charts” crowd gets a double helping this morning with separate creations comparing the post-recession jobs performance of the U.S. economy under Ronald Reagan during its first 25 months in the 1980s to the post-recession jobs results seen under Barack Obama since the recession as normal people define it ended 25 months ago.

The first chart shows all jobs:

In the first 25 months after the 1980s recession, the economy created 6.44 million jobs. To replicate that performance in the current era’s workforce, which was 52% larger at the end of the most recent recession than the workforce at the end of the 1980s recession, the economy would have had to have generated 9.789 million jobs by now. Instead, we’ve only seen 697,000 jobs added, a number which is 5.743 million less than the Reagan economy’s actual performance, and 9.092 million less than its workforce-adjusted performance.

The second chart addresses private sector jobs:

In the first 25 months after the 1980s recession, the economy created 6.089 million private-sector jobs. To replicate that performance in the current era’s workforce, the economy would have had to have generated 9.255 million jobs by now. Instead we’ve seen 1.22 million jobs added, a number which is 4.869 million less than the Reagan economy’s actual performance, and 8.035 million less than its workforce-adjusted performance.

Given the establishment press’s built-in pro-Obama favoritism, if his administration’s performance would have been one-half or even one-third as good as Reagan’s, he’d more than likely be cruising at 55% or so approval and considered a near cinch for reelection. The trouble is, on a workforce-adjusted basis, Obama’s post-recession economy has only created about 7% and 13% of the overall and private-sector jobs, respectively, that Reagan’s did.

“Unacceptable” doesn’t even begin to describe what we’ve seen during the past 25 months. The last 25 months have truly been a lost 25 months.

“Disgraceful” doesn’t even begin to describe the only two strategy alternatives the administration is considering for dealing with the intolerable mess it has created. As described in the New York Times yesterday:

As the economy worsens, President Obama and his senior aides are considering whether to adopt a more combative approach on economic issues, seeking to highlight substantive differences with Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail rather than continuing to pursue elusive compromises, advisers to the president say.

The fact that looking at policy solutions which have actually worked in the past — like the ones employed by Reagan involving tax cuts and regulatory relief — isn’t even on the radar demonstrates how intellectually bankrupt this bunch really is. In the current situation, the things that work would involve at a minimum repealing Obamacare and its related taxes rather than waiting for the Supreme Court to do it, opening up all feasible areas for oil and gas drilling and exploration, and calling off the EPA’s attack dogs. An additional and possibly more beneficial step would involve a regulatory freeze: No new regulations for the next 18 months, period — including with the rarest of exceptions ones that are scheduled for implementation.

But Team Obama won’t do any of this. We can debate all day and night whether they really care if the economy legitimately recovers, but the practical effect of their failure to even consider options which have historically worked is that we aren’t going to see a full-bore recovery for at least 18 months. Their willingness to sit around and watch the suffering continue all around them shows that Obama and his party really are the “Party of Compassion My A**.”

To prolifers, human beings are assets (they can deliberately turn themselves into liabilities, but that’s a discussion for another time). To proaborts and statists, human beings are liabilities, additional consumers of supposedly limited resources, net carbon emitters, etc.

Prolifers are correct. Proaborts and statists are wrong. It’s good to see someone who gets it speak out so publicly.

From London:

Aug 10, 2011 / 03:44 pm

The recent birth of David and Victoria Beckham’s baby daughter, Harper Seven, is good news for the future of humanity, according to a population expert who teaches at the London School of Economics.

“Congratulations to David and Victoria! The arrival of a fourth Beckham baby is certainly great news for them – but it’s also good news for the economy and the future of the planet,” said Dr. Dermot Grenham in an Aug. 10 interview with CNA.

Dr. Grenham was responding to several leading figures in the population control movement who condemned the Beckhams for having another child.

“No sooner does a celebrity have three or four children than the doomsayers start complaining that they are giving a very bad example to the rest of us who might all start having more children.

“If only this were true,” lamented Dr. Grenham, whose latest book “On Population” will be released in January.

“Birth rates in richer countries are already below replacement level, in some countries well below, which means that sooner or later there will be a dwindling number of workers to support the elderly. What sort of society will that leave to our children?”

His comments contrast sharply with those from the likes of Simon Ross, chief executive of the U.K.-based Optimum Population Trust, who last month criticized the Beckhams as “very bad role models.” Ross added, “there’s no point in people trying to reduce their carbon emissions and then increasing them by 100% by having another child.” …

Go here for the rest of the story.

I can hardly believe that the President of the United States, whose team is apparently deeply concerned about their guy’s declining popularity and news stories which kept Republicans in the headlines this weekend, is going on a “Me Too” bus tour of Iowa, Minnesota, and Illinois this week. The only plausible reason for this is to attempt to blunt the generally positive GOP vibe coming out of Iowa and to go after Michele Bachmann, Saturday’s Iowa straw poll winner.

In his coverage at the Associated Press today, Steven R. Hurst admits as much, while otherwise acting as the administration’s de facto propaganda spokesman (bolds and numbered tags are mine):

Obama begins political counteroffensive this week

President Barack Obama launches a political counteroffensive this week, weighed down by a stunted economy [1], wilting support among some of his most ardent backers, and a daily bashing from the slew of Republicans campaigning for his job. [2]

“We’ve still got a long way to go to get to where we need to be. We didn’t get into this mess overnight, and it’s going to take time to get out of it,” [3] the president told the country over the weekend, all but pleading for people to stick with him.

A deeply unsettled political landscape, with voters in a fiercely anti-incumbent mood, is framing the 2012 presidential race 15 months before Americans decide whether to give Obama a second term or hand power to the Republicans. Trying to ride out what seems to be an unrelenting storm of economic anxiety [1], people in the United States increasingly are voicing disgust with most all of the men and women, Obama included, they sent to Washington to govern them.

With his approval numbers sliding, the Democratic president will try to ease their worries and sustain his resurrected fighting spirit [4] when he sets off Monday on a bus tour of Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois. The trip is timed to dilute the GOP buzz emanating from the Midwest after Republicans gathered in Iowa over the weekend for a first test of the party’s White House candidates. [5] The state holds the nation’s first nominating test in the long road toward choosing Obama’s opponent.

… Obama, expecting the political shelling he would take, fired pre-emptively in his weekly radio and Internet address to the nation on Saturday. He told listeners that it was the Republicans running for president and serving in Congress who were at work crushing voters’ hopes and dreams. [6]

… He chastised Republicans for brinksmanship, saying “some in Congress would rather see their opponents lose than see America win.” [7]

That’s an assessment that has some validity, particularly among the new class of House Republicans who have used their outsized legislative power to stymie Obama at every turn since their election last November. [7]

Notes:

• [1] — It’s never Obama’s fault. In Hurst’s world, the economy is just there, not cooperating. Administration policies couldn’t poooooossibly have anything to do with the economy misery the nation continues to endure.
• [2] — It must be in the AP Stylebook somewhere that any criticism emanating from a conservative or Republican must be described as “bashing,” ravaging,” attacking,” “lashing out,” and the like.
• [3] — Translation: It’s still George W. Bush’s fault.
• [4] — C’mon, Steve-O, this is disgraceful. You’re supposed to be writing a news report, not a cheerleading press release from Pravda. The only good news in this is that if the press is having to roll out this kind of crap already, they must think that Barack Obama faces a long, hard next 15 months.
• [5] — To readers having a hard time remembering Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, Bill Clinton, or Bush 43 un-presidentially following the other party’s candidates around during the middle of the third year of their first terms (in the case of Carter and Bush 41, their only terms), there’s a reason for that. They didn’t.
• [6] — It’s as if Barack Obama’s not in charge now. It’s as if Democrats are at the mercy of Republicans in Washington now, even though they control the White House, the Senate, and the bureaucracy. It’s as if Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid didn’t have complete control in Washington for two years.
• [7] — I see Steven Hurst has joined the “Let’s attack the Tea Party at every turn” movement. If the “new class of Republicans” has such “outsized power,” Steve, how is it that they, as you admitted elsewhere in your coverage, were only able to get “an anemic deal to cut the government deficit”? As to the supposed “anti-incumbent mood” Hurst frequently cites, I’m betting that it hardly extends to Washington politicians who have demonstrated their support of Tea Party values.

Other items on AP’s checklist Hurst made sure he completed:

• Call Michele Bachmann an “ultraconservative” — check.
• Make sure readers know Rick Perry is “a former Democrat” (22 years ago!) — check.
• Criticize a Republican (in this case, Mitt Romney) who says something which is true, in this case that corporations are treated as persons before the law, as having given Democrats “a political gift” — check.
• Remind people that Perry is from the same state as the eeeeeevil George W. Bush, in an ominous tone (“Perry’s speaking style and swagger are eerily reminiscent of another Texas governor who made the transition to the national stage: President George W. Bush”) — check.

Getting back to Obama (and this is my personal take): This habit of his of appearing in the proximity of GOP candidates and leaders is something you’d normally see from supposedly overconfident authoritarians in banana republic countries attempting to intimidate their opponents by stalking them. It is immature, betrays immense insecurity, is certainly not presidential, and gives one the distinct sense that he has nothing better to do. Really?

Continued behavior of this nature will, I believe, prove counterproductive. I get the sense that the AP and Steven Hurst know this, but won’t own up to knowing it.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Sunday, Alexa Olesen at the Associated Press wrote an item headlined “One-child policy a surprising boon for China girls.” My immediate comeback: “43-60 million Chinese girls aborted because they were of the ‘wrong’ gender or would have violated the one-child policy were not available for comment.”

While nowhere near as odious as Nick Kristof’s “Mao Tse-tung wasn’t all that bad; look what he did for Chinese women” conclusion at the end of a book review on Mao’s murderous legacy almost six years ago, Olesen gets into the neighborhood.

Here are the first six and three later paragraphs from her report:

A Communist Youth League member [1] at one of China’s top science universities … (Tsinghua University freshman Mia Wang) boasts enviable skills in calligraphy, piano, flute and pingpong.

Such gifted young women are increasingly common in China’s cities and make up the most educated generation of women in Chinese history. Never have so many been in college or graduate school, and never has their ratio to male students been more balanced.

To thank for this, experts say, is three decades of steady Chinese economic growth, heavy government spending on education [2] and a third, surprising, factor: the one-child policy.

In 1978, women made up only 24.2 percent of the student population at Chinese colleges and universities. By 2009, nearly half of China’s full-time undergraduates were women and 47 percent of graduate students were female, according to the National Bureau of Statistics. [3] [4]

In India, by comparison, women make up 37.6 percent of those enrolled at institutes of higher education, according to government statistics.

Since 1979, China’s family planning rules have barred nearly all urban families from having a second child in a bid to stem population growth. With no male heir competing for resources, parents have spent more on their daughters’ education and well-being, a groundbreaking shift after centuries of discrimination.

… Some demographers argue that China’s fertility rate would have fallen sharply even without the one-child policy because economic growth tends to reduce family size. In that scenario, Chinese girls may have gotten more access to education anyway, though the gains may have been more gradual. [3]

… Still, 43 million girls have “disappeared” in China due to gender-selective abortion as well as neglect and inadequate access to health care and nutrition [5], the United Nations estimated in a report last year.

… It remains to be seen whether the new generation of degree-wielding women can alter the balance outside the classroom. [6]

Notes:

• [1] — It’s fair to ask if Ms. “Communist Youth League” Wang and her family were offered up as interview subjects by the communist Chinese government. If they were and Olsen didn’t disclose that fact, shame on Ms. Olesen and AP. It’s possible that they weren’t of course, but she seems an odd choice as someone supposedly “typical.”
• [2] — Context, Ms. Olesen. The U.S. spends at least half as much or more as a percentage of GDP as do the Chinese. Though the available info on China is sketchy, the nation appeared to spend about 2.5% of GDP on education until early in the previous decade; the Chinese government claimed 3.01% in 2006, and supposedly is aiming for 4%. Education spending as a percentage of GDP in the U.S. roughly 6% ($900 billion divided by $15 trillion).
• [3] — Why wouldn’t women’s progress have been even faster (in numbers at least) if millions of potential female university attendees, instead of being aborted in the womb, had been allowed to live? It’s also worth asking if admissions policies are being bent in favor of women, and whether higher education enrollment is the deciding factor in determining Chinese women’s allegedly overall better educational situation.
• [4] — Also, an April 26, 2011 “Room for Debate” item at the New York Times observed that “many Chinese graduates are unable to capitalize on their education, while wages for low-skill workers rise.” Maybe college is turning into a female dead-end on the mainland.
• [5] — Of the 43 million missing girls (this 2004 article estimated that the number might be 60 million by 2012-2014), I daresay almost all of them were lost to abortion, and very, very few to “inadequate access to health care and nutrition.” Putting all three in the same sentence is statistical abuse. Does Ms. Olesen even know the breakdown (or care)? Additionally, unless you’re going to claim and can prove that large numbers of Chinese couples deliberately withhold medical care and nutrition from their daughters in favor of their sons, on what basis would the latter two items affect girls more than boys?
• [6] — The real problem with “balance outside the classroom” is borne out in statistics showing that the male-female childbirth ratio is 119 boys for every 100 girls, and as high as 130 to 100 in some rural areas — and the Chinese now say they’re finally going to crack down on gender-selective abortions.

On March 31, 1933, the infamous Walter Duranty of the New York Times wrote the following concerning Stalin’s collectivization efforts in the Soviet Union (carried here; I verified its accuracy against what was originally published at the Times):

… to put it brutally — you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, and the Bolshevist leaders are just as indifferent to the casualties that may be involved in their drive towards socialization as any General during the (First) World War …

Also to put it brutally — The Chinese government has been just as indifferent to its tens of millions of murdered little girls as Mao was towards his countrymen in general. It is only now that they’re realizing, after tens of millions of “broken eggs,” that they haven’t been making an omelette at all — but perhaps the most gender-imbalanced society in human history, with a dangerous mix of tens of millions of males who have no realistic prospect of marrying.

The AP’s Olesen merely refers to a “skewed sex ratio” and failed to directly address this critical issue. Maybe it doesn’t matter to her, as long as Chinese babies who survive the perils of being carried to term end up (allegedly) better off.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Good news on energy, if Team Obama lets it stand and gets out of the way:

A judge on Friday threw out Obama administration rules that sought to slow down expedited environmental review of oil and gas drilling on federal land.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Freudenthal ruled in favor of a petroleum industry group, the Western Energy Alliance, in its lawsuit against the federal government, including Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

The ruling reinstates Bush-era expedited oil and gas drilling under provisions called categorical exclusions on federal lands nationwide, Freudenthal said.

The government argued that oil and gas companies had no case because they didn’t show how the new rules, implemented by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service last year, had created delays and added to the cost of drilling.

Freudenthal rejected that argument.

“Western Energy has demonstrated through its members recognizable injury,” she said. “Those injuries are supported by the administrative record.”

An attorney for the government declined to comment but Kathleen Sgamma, director of government and public affairs for the Denver-based Western Energy Alliance, praised the ruling.

“She completely discounted the government’s argument that the harm was speculative,” Sgamma said of the judge.

Michelle Malkin’s reax: “Obama’s War on the West: Another judge rebukes job-killing rogue Interior Department.”

If the Obama administration really cares about mending economy, it will let the judge’s ruling stand, not appeal it, and not try to come up with other “creative” ways to stop energy drilling and exploration. The betting here is that the obstruction will continue, thereby also continuing to make a mockery of the administration’s claim to be genuinely interested in economic growth and job creation.

From Castel Gandalfo, Italy:

Aug 10, 2011 / 04:53 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Catholic Church is blessed to have a Pope who shows such a deep appreciation of classical music, says composer James MacMillan.

“We are lucky that we have a pontiff who values the true pinnacles of human civilization and creative achievement,” MacMillan remarked to CNA, Aug. 10.

His comments followed a gala concert in honor of Pope Benedict’s 60th anniversary of being ordained a priest. It was held on the evening of Aug. 9 at his summer residence of Castel Gandolfo.

Performing before the pope and his brother Georg – who is also marking his 60th year as a priest – were the German oboist, Albrecht Mayer, and Arabella Steinbacher, a young German-Japanese violinist. They were joined by an ensemble composed of six musicians from different international orchestras.

The evening’s repertoire was drawn exclusively from the 18th century, with works by Johann Sebastian Bach and Antonio Vivaldi being performed. In his words of thanks, the Pope highlighted the Christian faith permeating both composers’ work.

He said the works of Vivaldi, an Italian priest, were “an example of brightness and beauty that conveys serenity and joy,” revealing “his deeply religious spirit.”

The Pope also recalled how the Bach would always sign his compositions “SDG,” meaning “Soli Deo Gloria” in Latin, or “the Glory to God Alone” in English. This, said the Pope, reflected the composer’s “religious conception of art” and “strong faith” which “sustained and illuminated his entire life” and produced sacred music that “almost groped to reproduce the perfect harmony that God has imprinted in creation.”

“It is marvelous that Benedict can delight in the secular outpouring of the western canon of ‘classical’ music as well as the sacred,” said MacMillan, reflecting upon last night’s concert.

“The great composers were like angels who fell to earth to give the rest of us a glimpse of heaven. The fact that many of them were faithful servants of the Church, too, creating the finest music for our sacred liturgies is a double bonus which should excite and exult all Catholics.”

Go here for the rest of the story.

Tuesday (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), yours truly noted an email from the Associated Press’s Images Group which encouraged subscribing outlets to use its “iconic images and videos” to promote the 85th birthday of Fidel Castro, the “Legendary Cuban revolutionary and longtime leader.”

Today, writing what may be the wire service’s last calendar-driven excuse to heap praise on him while he is still alive, the AP’s Peter Orsi described Cuban dictator Castro as a “revolutionary icon” with an “outsize persona,” who in his prime was “a gregarious public speaker,” and while in retirement remains a “prolific writer.”

(more…)

Per this comment at Hot Air:

2011 Straw Poll Full Results (Votes, %):
1. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (4823, 28.55%)
2. Congressman Ron Paul (4671, 27.65%)
3. Governor Tim Pawlenty (2293, 13.57%)
4. Senator Rick Santorum (1657, 9.81%)
5. Herman Cain (1456, 8.62%)
6. Governor Rick Perry (718, 3.62%) write-in
7. Governor Mitt Romney (567, 3.36%)
8. Speaker Newt Gingrich (385, 2.28%)
9. Governor Jon Huntsman (69, 0.41%)
10. Congressman Thad McCotter (35, 0.21%)

Bachmann did what she had to do — but barely, which was win with a stacked deck in the state of her birth, and beat back what may be the last serious charge of the Ron Paul brigade.

Pawlenty is probably going to take his third place finish as an indicator of long-term viability, but I think he’s dreaming. He’s from adjacent Minnesota; a former two-term governor got doubled up by a third-term Congresswoman from the same state. He should have wiped the floor with her if he was really the candidate his supporters think he is. He’s not. (Update, August 14: Apparently, T-Paw read the tea leaves correctly and is “T-parting” from the race. Also, see the Update below.)

Santorum is the guy who gained the most in stature. I still don’t get why he brings anything important to the table, but he’s more than likely catching some of the social conservative vote.

Cain? His blocking and tackling is clearly making headway, as everyone else was in the dust (with Perry as a special case to be mentioned in a bit). The question is whether he has enough time to block and tackle his way to being in contention with Bachmann, Romney, and the others near the front (plus the just-declared Perry). I think he needs to work on his (pun intended) passing game.

Perry’s officially in, as of today. Yes, he was a write-in, but if he could only get less than 4% of the straws to vote for him, I don’t see how we’re supposed to be impressed.

We all knew Romney chickened out of Iowa six months ago. If he was hoping to have a “see how impressive I am when I’m not even trying?” moment, it didn’t happen.

Gingrich will not be our next president. He’s a usually brilliant ideas guy, as was apparently demonstrated in Thursday’s debate, but he has demonstrated that he can’t be allowed anywhere near anything resembling executive responsibility.

I think the Iowa caucuses are shaping up to be a situation where Bachmann, given her birthplace and current proximity, had better win very handily. If she doesn’t, her strength will be questioned, and it will dissipate from that point forward. Anyone who finishes a close second or maybe even a close third in Iowa will then become the one or ones to watch.

If Sarah Palin wants to enter the race, her time is running short. Other candidates are building organizations and momentum. The longer she delays, the harder it will be. Ask Fred Thompson about that. He entered the race on August 31, 2007. Given that the Iowa caucus and the primaries are a bit later this year, a new candidate might be able to get away with jumping in just after Labor Day, but that’s about as far as it goes.

_________________________________________

UPDATE: Scott at Powerline comments on T-Paw’s departure, and scores some accurate hits on Michele Bachmann’s conduct —

… she derailed Pawlenty’s aspirations.

… Bachmann’s attacks on Pawlenty during the Republican presidential candidates’ debate this week were almost entirely false and demagogic. Those of us who admire her can’t help but think less of her as a result.

It is disappointing that Pawlenty proved unable to maintain his campaign all the way to the Iowa caucuses next year. If Bachmann is highly unlikely to secure the Republican presidential nomination, Ron Paul, the second place finisher, is even less so. Pawlenty’s chances with Iowa Republican caucus participants would have been better than they were in the straw poll event.

But it is too simple to attribute the end of Pawlenty’s campaign entirely to Bachmann and the straw poll. The Pawlenty campaign started its downward descent from the moment he refrained from confronting Mitt Romney — in the first candidates’ debate — with the assault he had leveled against “Obamneycare” on one of the Sunday morning shows when Romney wasn’t in the room. Pawlenty never recovered from that momentary failure of nerve, which is what it appeared to me at the time, though the calculation that went into it probably belies that characterization.

Republicans are looking for someone who can stand up to Barack Obama and go toe to toe with him on the national stage. The hunger among Republicans on this score is almost palpable. If Pawlenty couldn’t land a fair punch on Romney to his face — not the cheap shot on the size of Romney’s lawn that he deployed during last week’s debate — one had to doubt that Pawelenty was the guy to face down Obama.

I disagree that Bachmann’s outlook for victory is “highly unlikely,” but I agree that she has not covered herself in glory with T-Paw.

Far more importantly, I should also note (again) that Bachmann’s official position on the debt-ceiling debate — that the ceiling should not have been raised for any conceivable reason — was untenable and financially impossible. Given her tax accounting background, she knew better, and took a cynical position to corral the votes of less astute folks with Tea Party sympathies whose hearts are in the right place but who don’t fully appreciate how quickly the Obama administration has made the government’s financial situation nearly terminal.

UPDATE 2, August 15, 1:00 a.m.: Prof. Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection (HT commenter dscott) also notes Bachmann’s whisper campaign against Sarah Palin, wherein the candidate’s peeps are in, per RCP, “a concerted effort from the Bachmann camp to spread rumors that Palin has already decided not to run and will eventually endorse the Minnesotan.”