Right Wing Nut House

For all you Tony Almeda fans out there, I have very bad news.

Tony will, very soon, return to the Dark Side and be Jack’s enemy while working to bring whatever the final goal of the conspiracy might be to fruition.

You could see it in his face while Emerson, his “brother” was lying severerly wounded. (Is he Dead? The fact that they carried his body to the back of the hangar before the traitors came to pick up Maboto would seem to indicate that he is, in fact, dead. Or Jack would be the perfect customer in the Monty Pythons “Dead Parrot” sketch.)

Even before then, while Tony was describing how he felt after Emerson revived him you could see he still believes he’s been screwed by the government. And this begs the question; what happens when the CIP Module is safely in the hands of the good guys? Tony’s rationale for being on the government’s side evaporates which I believe will cause him to flip and rejoin his comrades in the conspiracy.

This sets up some pretty high drama with Jack probably being the one who is forced to kill Tony (permanently) in the end. Judging by how fast this plot is moving, that might not happen for a few years.

I will reiterate my complaint about the pace of the show. It is deadly slow with precious little suspense, very little action, and some god-awful speechifying by Maboto, President Taylor, and others. That blather the President spread around the cabinet room should be grounds for her impeachment. She would rather see 200,000 American die than Sangalese? Being a “force for good” in the world is hardly relevant when you have dead Americans all over the place. The point is, she has a choice. And she is choosing dead Americans over dead Sangalese. Nobody said the choice was easy. But in the end, she is violating her oath of office by protecting foreigners at the expense of American citizens.

The story lines are interesting but, as I said last week, are not converging. At all. They continue in a straight line with their own exposition and character development. It appears that next week, we will finally have convergence as the Tony/Jack/CTU thread will merge with the Dubaku/Emerson thread. The First Gentleman thread and the White House thread appear static with the president in the dark about Jack’s op as well as her husband’s efforts to uncover the conspiracy that killed their son. The FBI thread is off in limbo somewhere.

We know they have to stretch the show out for 24 hours but this is awful. Six hours into the show before Jack gets his first full Kill? This is not the 24 that I knew…

SUMMARY

Agent Larry Moss is frantic with worry about Renee, after NSA intercepted a domestic call without a warrant from Emerson to the traitors working for Dubaku indicating that Walker was a gone goose. Seeing Larry’s distress (he is madly in love with her) Agent Hillinger offers condlolences only to have his head bitten off by Moss for even suggesting she might be dead. And the hunt for Maboto continues at the FBI.

Chloe and Bill arrive at the still empty construction site where Jack and Tony have buried Renee. One might ask how they got there until we recall that they implanted a listening device on Jack so they know everything that has transpired. One might also ask how they knew exactly where Renee’s body was but then, we wouldn’t have to suspend belief and where would we be?

After pulling the unrealistic “Adreniline in the heart” move, Renee gasps and sits up. Lazarus was probably a little groggy after being told to “come forth,” but Renee pops right up, dead one minute, ready to kill terrorists the next. When they fill her in on Jack and what he’s really up to, she is strangely hostile. She gets even crabbier when Bill tells her she can’t call Larry and tell him she’s ok. The threesome heads for the rendevous where Jack will be.

On the way there, Jack gets around to asking Emerson how they revived Tony after he was dead. Well, it seems that Tony was never really dead - it just looked that way when his heart stopped beating. It turns out that old Buckaroo Banzai, Henderson himself, only faked injecting Tony in the vein - missing it just enough to make him appear to be dead.

What can you possibly say about such idiocy? I was laughing out loud listening to this crap as Jack ate it up and never blinked an eye. I hate it when the writers take us for dolts and that explanation was so incredible that they must have no respect for the intelligence of their audience at all.

At any rate, it gave Tony a chance to emote. Well, given Carlos Bernard’s “talent,” he emoted as much as we can expect any cheesy actor to emote. He scowled a little bit more. His eyes became even more hooded. And in his monotone growl, he nearly whispered that Emerson convinced him that the government was the enemy for killing his beloved Michelle. “No honor left,” he grunted.

That Tony. What an actor.

But Emerson saw something he didn’t like from Jack. And when Jack got out of the van and moved to the rear to get Maboto and his wife, Emerson suddenly grabbed Jack’s gun, placed Bauer in a choke hold, and asked Tony what was going on.

Of course, Jack screamed at Tony to shoot Emerson - his friend and brother. Tony hesitates just long enough to let us know that he really is torn at this point (which gives life to my theory that he will, in fact, betray them all) but finally fires and hits Emerson in the shoulder. Before the terrorist can raise his gun to kill Tony, Jack puts one in his neck.

Tony tries to minister to the stricken terrorist but it is apparently too late. Emerson spits his last breath at Tony, telling him to go to hell, that he’s not forgiven.

In the meantime, Jack opens the back of the van to find a surprised and distrustful Maboto. Very politely, Jack explains that he really didn’t mean to almost kill he and his wife with poison gas, that they were only trying to get to Dubaku. And by the way, Mr. Prime Minister, would you please get back in the van so we can hand you and your wife over to your deadly enemy anyway?

Maboto looks dubious until his wife tells him “He has no reason to lie.” Besides, one look at Jack and you know he’s trustworthy. He’s the kind of guy that when he was a kid would impress all the adults in the neighborhood with his good manners and respectful attitude, while at night, he would go into their back yards and rip up their gardens and garrotte their cats.

The Prime Minister finally agrees and Chloe springs into action. She has a device that fits on to one of the Prime Minister’s teeth that will allow the gang to keep track of him. But Maboto is still a little confused about who he’s dealing with.

Maboto (to Chloe): Are you with the FBI?

Chloe: No. I’m just a stay-at-home mom.

Thoroughly confused now but trusting in Jack, Maboto gets back in the van.

Walker is still mad at Jack. What’s she got to complain about? Aside from shooting her in the neck and burying her alive, Jack hasn’t really done anything to her. For Jack, that’s just a little foreplay. Anyway, Walker finally realizes that Jack didn’t have a choice which, as we all know, is the first step toward true love.

Back at Dubaku’s hideout, the genocidal colonel is getting antsy. The deadline has passed and the American military is still poised to deliver some shock and awe to his boss, General Juma. After sending Nichols off to pick up Maboto - ordering him to eliminate Emerson and his crew - Dubaku orders the American techies to change the course of an aircraft over Washington.

At the White House, Kanin once again tries to get the President to pull the troops back to save American lives. Her stubborness now has a price tag as Dubaku calls and tells her to look out the White House window. He has vectored two planes on the same flight path and suddenly, they collide. We are told that 270 people died in the middair collision with more dead on the ground. Dubaku - his point made - threatens to kill 10,000 more Americans unless the troops are withdrawn.

Taylor heads immediately into a cabinet meeting where everyone recommends pulling back - except her. This proves too much for the Secretary of State Joe Stevens who resigns after predicting that once all the information was made available she would be impeached for her “reckless” foreign policy.

This resignation calls for a patriotic speech from Madame President. We hear that the world looks to the US for hope, that we have always been a “force for good” in the world and that by gum! we’ve got to live up to that credo by sacrificing American boys on a distant battlefield where there’s no possible vital interest at stake for America as well as allowing the deaths of thousands more innocent Americans at home. All this to save some foreigners who are in danger.

How brave! How noble we are!

How sickening.

I did find it interesting that the show ignored the dominant liberal narrative of the past 8 years by saying we have always been a force for “good” in the world and that we had what amounts to a moral authority in that regard. But the idea that our reputation rises or falls based on how willing we are to sacrifice our blood and treasure for someone else is lunacy.

Anyway, it seems to buck up some of the cabinet. But not Kamin and the Homeland Security Secretary Woods. They think they can use the First Gentleman to intercede and try to make his wife listen to reason. Kamin decides to call him and see if he will do it.

Henry is a little busy at the moment. More accurately, he’s a little tied up - by Secret Service Agent Brian who spiked Taylor’s coffee with a nerve agent. He’s sitting on the couch when dark haird Samantha arrives. And since he can’t speak a word to warn her, Gedge is able to sneak up behind her. She dies bloody, as I wrote in my first summary, and as all dark haired women on the show eventually do, right in front of Henry.

Kamin chooses that moment to call Brian. He can’t get through to Henry. Well, of course not, says Brian, he’s in Sam’s apartment and I’m out here in my car waiting. Kamin orders Brian to tell Henry to buzz him immediately but Brian has other plans.

Taking a hunk of telephone wire, he throws it over a beam on the upper floor. But Henry is getting feeling back in his hands and when Brian goes to hang him, the two struggle breifly before they topple over the railing and fall on a table below. Henry is fortunate enough to have been on top and thus endeth the life of Brian, crooked Secret Service Agent.

At the hangar, Nichols shows up to collect Maboto. Tony gives him a cock and bull story about killing Emerson because he wanted the diamonds they were going to receive in payment all for himself. Nichols never bats an eye, allowing Tony to examine the diamonds. Then, when he has Maboto and his wife in hand, he gives the 24 head nod that all bad guys give instead of just saying “Shoot the mother.” However, Jack and his high powered rifle has Tony’s back and Bauer gets his first real kill of the show when he knocks off Tony’s would be assassin. Tony tells Nichols to get lost and the traitor gets in the car with Maboto and his wife in tow.

Back at Sam’s apartment we have a “situation” as it were. The First Gentleman is lying on the floor, still barely able to move, with two dead bodies and a knife that has his fingerprints on it. What’s a presidential spouse to do? Run, rabbit, run.

After the planes crash, Dubaku sees that the President is still not doing as she has been told. Cooly, he orders the next target to be primed. It’s a small anytown America in Ohio with a chemical plant on the outskirts of town. We are informed that casualties will be close to 18,000 unless Jack can get there in time and foil Dubaku’s evil plans.

Will the First Gent be wanted for murder? Will Jack be able to save the town from disaster? Will Tony ever learn how to act?

Stay tuned until next week.

BODY COUNT

We hear that 270 are dead on the plane - a number that may rise if they tell us how many died on the ground.

Tony got one of Emerson’s men in the hangar.

The First Gentleman made sure there is one less bent Secret Service agent.

Jack got his first kill all his own - a bullseye with the sniper’s rifle. Since it would pain Tony to share in killing Emerson, we will give him a half and Jack a half.

Jack: 2
Show: 281

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

It is probably too early to get a good handle on what kind of president Barack Obama will turn out to be. After all, it’s been less than 4 days since he took the oath for keeps.

Still, the study of the American presidency is a study in the exercise of power in a democratic republic. How does Obama turn his comfortable electoral victory into actionable policies and programs?

Taking the raw, unformed mandate of victory at the polls and shaping it into a club to get Congress and the various departments to do his bidding has been his first chore. In this, he has succeeded. He controls the agenda. His own party looks to him for leadership, while the Republicans — both for political and traditional reasons — are generally inclined to grant him the benefit of the doubt. This so-called “honeymoon” is nothing more than recognition by the opposition of political reality. The Republicans lost by near-landslide proportions, and now that his popularity has skyrocketed during the transition, to be seen hindering Obama is to be seen as obstructing the will of the people. At least, that’s the argument that Democrats would make.

Obama made it quite plain what that means when Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) went into a critique of the new president’s “stimulus plan.” Reportedly, Obama waited for Cantor to finish and then said, simply “I won.” Obama’s two word put down trumped the discussion. (Glenn Reynolds points out that if George Bush had tried something like that, he would have been considered arrogant.)

Obama will eventually discover, as all presidents do, that the office is, at one and the same time, both the weakest of Constitutional offices and the strongest. All Article II says about a president’s powers is that he must execute the laws, act as Commander in Chief, make treaties, and fill vacancies in the departments during congressional recesses. And that’s basically it. He cannot “propose”, only “dispose.”

The office of president draws some of its strength from the direct support of the people. In parliamentary systems, it is the prime minister’s power base among MP’s that allows him to exercise his authority. If he loses support among the people, he can still wield a considerable amount of influence as long as his party has “confidence” in his leadership. A president, as amply demonstrated by the last 18 months of the Bush presidency, has no such luxury. Power ebbs and flows as a result of the will of the people and a weak president is next to useless except in matters of national security where his undoubted supremacy as Commander in Chief imbues the office with the ability to respond to any crisis involving the safety and security of the people.

For the first 2 or 3 months, Obama will be more powerful than at any other point during his term in office. During these first few days, he has sought to use that power both symbolically and practically, altering some of the policies of his predecessor while staying the course on others.

Here’s the good, the bad, and the ugly of Obama’s first week.

The Ugly

The entire inaugural was a disaster area. The program was marked by a poem that some consider to have been the worst in inaugural history. A flat, strangely subdued (almost dirge-like) performance by some of the world’s greatest musicians turned out to be taped. A hugely inappropriate benediction was given by the Reverend Joseph Lowrey. The huge crowd booed and mocked the outgoing president thus insulting not only Bush but Obama. And, after a flubbed oath of office that forced him to take it over again, a strangely uninspiring and forgettable address by the President himself.

There was also the evening festivities where President and Mrs. Obama found time for Hollywood celebrities, Washington glitterati, and politicos of every shape and size but somehow had no room on his dance card for the 48 Medal of Honor winners who attended the “Salute to Heroes” ball — the first time in 56 years the Commander in Chief failed to show. The new president attended another mostly military ball but broke faith with his predecessors when he snubbed the MOH winners and other wounded vets — some of whom had limped to the Ball from Walter Reed hospital.

The launch of the new WhiteHouse.gov website got a black eye when it was discovered the worst kind of partisan language was used to describe the reconstruction of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. Someone should tell Obama’s partisans on the White House staff that the campaign is over and the American people will judge him based on his performance and not on how cleverly he can pass the buck for any failures on his predecessor.

There was the ugly scene in the press room on Wednesday night where Obama became irritated when a reporter asked a question he didn’t like. For a president to treat the press as an extension of his administration’s PR arm — which is what Obama was expecting when he entered the press room in the first place — and not working reporters with a job to do, is clearly a troubling indication, first noticed during the campaign, that this president will not accept criticism or opposition very graciously. This attitude is probably going to make the press even less likely to challenge him — if they had a mind to do so in the first place.

Finally, the question that got Obama’s dander up regarded his intention to name lobbyist William Lynn to the position of Deputy Defense Secretary. In order to do so, Obama has to waive his own rules not to hire any lobbyists for his administration.

Not even 72 hours into his presidency and he’s already broken one of his major campaign promises. And he wonders why people are cynical about politics? Ugly, indeed.

The Good

The high point of the inaugural may have been the playing of the national anthem by the Navy Band and sung by the “Sea Chanters” — played and sung as it should be played and sung, at the proper speed (a fairly brisk 135 beats a minute) and without the pop-culture trashing of the piece with unnecessary jazzy lilts and rock ‘n roll screams. And the parade was pretty good.

Obama’s choice of Richard Holbrooke for special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan (”AFPAK”) may be the best move of the week. Holbrooke is a no-nonsense, straight from the shoulder, tell-it-like-it-is diplomat. He was the chief architect of the Dayton Accords that ended the Bosnian War, knocking heads together until the two sides came to an agreement. As UN Ambassador, he got our contribution reduced while forcing the first tentative steps at reforming the corrupt finances of that body. (John Bolton, in his short time at the UN, did far more and was much more honest about the scandalous state of UN finances.)

If there is anyone who can persuade the Pakistani government to crack down on the Taliban and al-Qaeda who are currently crossing the border into Afghanistan almost at will it is Holbrooke. His portfolio does not include any power to negotiate with the Taliban, which is good. But neither does it include any instructions regarding India or the Kashmir, which is bad. Obviously, the Kashmir is a breeding ground for terrorists and the big bone of contention between the two countries. (Laura Rozen outlines the downside to this at the Foreign Policy magazine blog The Cable. )

President Obama also issued an executive order that will bring some sunshine back into the Oval Office, when he nixed a Bush era rule that not only hid many presidential documents behind executive privilege but allowed surviving family members to make the same claim even after the death of the ex-president. Any move that opens the government to scrutiny is a good one — even if, as seems likely, Democrats will use Bush documents to press for an investigation into his presidency. Obama could have grandfathered the executive order to include the papers of future presidents only but such a move would have had his base howling in protest.

Finally, it was heartening to find out that President Obama will continue the Bush policy of attacking the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan. The missile attack ordered by the president struck compounds in North and South Waziristan - a hot bed of al-Qaeda and Taliban activity. Past attacks have targeted the terrorist’s leadership but there’s no word yet on any success in that regard.

The Bad

Obama’s choice of George Mitchell for Middle East Envoy in the immediate aftermath of the Israeli-Hamas War may turn out to be a big mistake. As AT’s news editor Ed Lasky points out here, Mitchell has a history of seeing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a question of Israel needing to give more in negotiations than the Palestinians. Expectations of Mitchell’s “friendliness” in the Arab world may be raised due to his Lebanese ancestry and his promotion of a more “evenhanded” approach to the conflict. How this will affect US-Israel ties is unknown, but after 8 years of strong support for Israel from George Bush, there is no doubt that the appointment of Mitchell signals a big change.

Another big change is perhaps Obama’s worst decision this week; the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility along with all other “black sites” run by the CIA. This was done with absolutely no plan regarding what to do with the remaining inmates at Gitmo nor coming up with an alternate for the CIA sites that isolated the “worst of the worst” terrorists in total security and secrecy.

One can look at most of Obama’s actions this first week as payoffs to constituent groups who supported him in the election. His decision to close Gitmo can be seen in that light. The base of the Democratic Party had been suffering apoplectic fits for years over Gitmo and the terrorist trials. Closing the facility and suspending the tribunals was shortsighted. There is no plan in place on where to put the prisoners, how to judge them, or how to make sure that further releases do not return to fight us again. It is irresponsible and dangerous to our security, it’s cheered the base of the Democratic party nonetheless. Apparently, President Obama prefers to indulge in symbolism at the expense of our safety.

Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said the decision to close Guantánamo by a year from now “places hope ahead of reality — it sets an objective without a plan to get there.” I would add that it places atmospherics ahead of common sense — a bad sign for any presidency, but especially one where the new chief executive has so little experience on national security issues.

An argument can be made to close Guantanamo and the black sites. But to make such an announcement without an alternate plan for where to house the prisoners, what legal structure will replace the tribunals, what, if any, rights will be granted the enemy combatants, what to do with future al-Qaeda leaders who are captured, and other questions Obama didn’t bother to address with this political grandstanding and pandering to his base, suggests that the new president is unserious about issues affecting our security. Such may not be the case. But it is hard to judge otherwise given the cavalier manner in which Obama has taken these steps.

Another decision made rather cavalierly was the rescinding of the “Mexico City Policy” which prevents groups receiving federal funds from promoting or performing abortions overseas.

Americans supported the Mexico City Policy by more than 2-1. It is a good policy for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it prevented overly zealous groups from promoting abortion as a means of birth control in poor countries. This is an inherently racist attitude as it attaches less worth to babies of color than white babies. It also saved the lives of countless women who would have been exposed to dangerous procedures performed in less than ideal facilities from a medical point of view.

Rescinding this order (a payoff to feminists) will do little to improve the lot of women in poor countries and may even put their lives at risk. Quite a price to pay for pandering to a constituency.

Finally, Obama made his first really dumb political move when he picked a fight with Rush Limbaugh, telling GOP senators that they shouldn’t listen to the talk show host and get on board with his stimulus package.

Obama broke the first rule of political gunslinging: never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel — or in the case of Rush Limbaugh, someone with 23 million daily listeners and 3 hours every day with which to make you look like an idiot.

Limbaugh correctly diagnosed Obama’s attack:

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier’s plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.

It won’t be much of a war. Obama can’t respond to Limbaugh every day while Rush will pummel him mercilessly. He was going to do so anyway but now Obama has made it personal. Aside from being a stupid move, it is simply bad politics.

As of Sunday, Obama’s approval rating stands at a robust 68%. But with more questions being raised about his stimulus bill and the entire bailout culture that has sprung up in recent months. it stands to reason there is only one direction those numbers can go. And because as Peter Wehner points out in Commentary Magazine, Obama’s support is “aesthetic rather than substantive” — driven by a cult of personality rather than ideas — it is likely we will see those numbers travel south as the reality of our economic situation and security concerns set in and people realize that The One does not have all the answers.

The Kepler mission will be the first serious search for habitable planets in our galaxy.

Taking a break from politics this weekend (at least on this blog) because I’ve had a hankerin’ to do some gee-whiz, wowie-zowie, omigod, eye-popping, knock you out of your sox, space blogging.

There’s a lot going on at NASA besides trying to keep the dinosaur Shuttle fleet in one piece. (I pray every time they launch that Edsel that humans will not pay with their lives for the bureaucratic bungling that has us using this antique rather than modernizing years ago.) It is a consequence of a lazy media and their even lazier audience that the truly stunning scientific accomplishments that NASA is generally responsible for (in partnership with the EU, the Russians, and others on occasion) are barely reported and commented on.

NASA may be an agency in search of a grand vision but when it comes to cutting edge science, they do alright. The Mars rovers, orbiters, and the most recent laboratory lander, the Phoenix, that discovered what almost certainly is water ice at the north pole, are radically changing our view of the “dead” red planet (recent discoveries of plumes of methane suggest the possibility of life).

The agency’s New Horizon’s mission to Pluto and the Kuyper Belt is chugging along about a third of the way to crossing the orbit of Uranus. Launched 3 years ago, the spacecraft is the fastest man made object in the solar system traveling at more than 43,000 MPH. Even at that speed, it won’t reach Pluto until July of 2015.

The Hubbell Space Telescope is still amazing scientists with its discoveries. And for pure, geeky, kewlness, the pictures that are beamed to earth from Hubbell can’t be beat. Hubbell’s successor - The James Webb Space Telescope - will, if it works properly, probably have the capability to see earth-like planets in enough detail that we will be able to discern whether any intelligent life exists there.

But the launch of Webb is four years off. In the meantime, the most sophisticated effort in history to find earth like planets will be undertaken on March 6 of this year when NASA launches the Kepler Spacecraft into orbit.

A different kind of telescope, Kepler will be equipped with a gigantic photometer and will peer at one, small section of the sky continuously, comprising about 100,000 stars. It’s job will be to catch earth-like planets crossing in front of its star - “transiting” is the scientific term - and then determining the shape of its orbit.

The goal is to discover those planets in the “Goldilocks Zone” or habital zone, where water can exist in liquid form and planetary temperatures would at least give life a chance to arise. It’s called the “Goldilocks Zone” because the orbit would place the planet in a zone not too cold and not too hot but “just right.” This is a narrow zone indeed if you think about it. Of our two closest planetary neighbors, Venus is probably too close to the sun for life to have arisen (other factors like a runaway greenhouse effect also doomed life there) and Mars may be at the outer edge of the habital zone, having seen liquid water early in its formation as well as the possibility mentioned previously that some form of microbial life still exists there.

Here’s a brief overview of the mission from the Kepler website:

The scientific objective of the Kepler Mission is to explore the structure and diversity of planetary systems. This is achieved by surveying a large sample of stars to:

1. Determine the percentage of terrestrial and larger planets there are in or near the habitable zone of a wide variety of stars;
2. Determine the distribution of sizes and shapes of the orbits of these planets;
3. Estimate how many planets there are in multiple-star systems;
4. Determine the variety of orbit sizes and planet reflectivities, sizes, masses and densities of short-period giant planets;
5. Identify additional members of each discovered planetary system using other techniques; and
6. Determine the properties of those stars that harbor planetary systems.

Using supercooled charge coupled devices (CCD’s), the sensitive photometer will be able to determine a small body transiting a distant star by measuring light before and during the transit. It is described as akin to measuring the light blocked by a moth as it transits a searchlight. The telescope will have its eye fixed on one, relatively small section of the sky and study such transits for 100,000 stars over a 5 year period.

There are a couple of drawbacks to this method of detecting earth-like planets. First, Kepler will only be able to see planets orbiting within the plane of the star. In our solar system, Neptune orbits outide of the plane of the sun which means its transits are very, very rare. An earth like planet orbiting closer to the star but not in its plane would have more transits but probably not enough to be detected during the 5 year life span of Kepler. (Scientists believe they have to see at least 3 or 4 transits in that period that will show the exact same drop off in starlight due to the object’s transit in order to be able to have a “robust” confidence in the data.)

Secondly, there is a possibility (some astronomers believe a probability) that Kepler won’t discover many of these earth like planets at all, that there are just too few of them. NASA says that this will also be valuable knowledge and I agree. But with cost overruns pushing Kepler’s price tag toward $500 million, the Republican in me questions whether earth-based observations could eventually achieve the same results for about 1/10 the cost.

At any rate, here are NASA’s expectations for Kepler:

Expected Results:

Based on the mission described above, including conservative assumptions about detection criteria, stellar variability, taking into account only orbits with 4 transits in 3.5 years, etc., and assuming that planets are common around other stars like our Sun, then we expect to detect:

From transits of terrestrial planets in one year orbits:

• About 50 planets if most are the same size as Earth (R~1.0 R_e) and none larger,
• About 185 planets if most have a size of R~1.3 R_e,
• About 640 planets if most have a size of R~2.2 R_e,
• About 12% with two or more planets per system.

These numbers come out substantially higher, when one takes into consideration all orbits from a few days to more than one year.

From modulation of the reflected light from giant inner planets:

• About 870 planets with periods less than one week.

From transits of giant planets:

• About 135 inner-orbit planet detections,
• Densities for 35 inner-orbit planets, and
• About 30 outer-orbit planet detections.

Detection of the short-period giant planets should occur within the first several months of the mission.

The sample size of stars for this mission is large enough to capture the richness of the unexpected. Should no detection be made, a null result would still be very significant.

As you can see, there would still be valuable data gleaned from the mission even if they only discovered a handful of earth like planets. To date, extra-solar planets have overwhelmingly been of the “hot giant” class due to the methods employed to discover extra-solar planets using earth based observations. The debate over why this is so is fascinating. Are these Hot Giants failed stars? Since about half of the stars in our galaxy are binary star systems with two suns in close proximity to one another, that explanation makes sense. Or are our theories on how planets form wrong? The “accretion disc” theory has been with us for several decades but suppose there are alternate means by which the dust and gas surrounding a new star resolves itself?

The big question is can both short period Hot Giants and earth like planets exist in the same solar system? Kepler may help answer that.

Kepler is the next step in NASA’s efforts to discover extra-solar life and perhaps, intelligent neighbors who might also be searching the heavens for signs they are not alone. More likely, those planets Kepler will find, if they harbor intelligent life, feature civilizations far more advanced or far less advanced than ours. But the discovery that there are perhaps thousands of earth like planets in the habital zones of stars in our galaxy alone would almost certainly change the way we look at our universe. Even many skeptics would be forced to rethink their notions of life in the universe if Kepler meets expectations.

Enjoy these discoveries while you can. With trillion dollar deficits staring Congress in the face, the probability that NASA funds will be cut to the bone are about 95%. Congressmen find it easy to cut programs that don’t enrich cronies or buy them votes back home. Most of the pure scientific exploration represented by Kepler, New Horizons, the Mars probes, and the Webb telescope are easy pickings for the budget cutters.

The paltry amounts that will be saved pale in comparison to what we will be losing.

There are few on the right who have thought more about where conservatism is and where it should be going than David Frum. Frum is a former Bush speechwriter, National Review writer, author and columnist. He just started a new blog called The New Majority which features a wide range of conservative opinion mixed with some nuts and bolts politics.

Along with Ross Douthat, Marc Ambinder, David Brooks, and a precious few other conservatives, Frum is looking deeply and seriously at conservatism’s flaws, strengths, and perhaps most importantly and relevantly, how to translate conservative principles into actionable political ideas that can win elections and establish a sound basis for governance.

In short, Frum and his new blog will almost certainly be one of the focal points in the conservative movement for the foreseeable future - or at least, it should be. The New Majority is where ideology and practical politics will merge as various strains of conservatism wrestle with ways to become relevant in the Age of Obama.

That Age is well underway, having begun even before Obama was elected. There was nothing subtle about the media’s clear preference in the November election, the consequences of which have yet to play out. The only thing certain is that to a degree not seen since the early 1960’s, conservatism as an ideology is being dismissed by the political class as irrelevant. When politicians start running away from basic conservative principles and embrace the milquetoast center or center- left, including bailout mania and other manifestations of creeping statism, you know it’s time to roll up your sleeves and get to work rebuilding a shattered conservative polity.

As I see it, there are several tracks to a conservative revival, all working toward the same goal but in strikingly different ways. You have the generalists like Frum and his cohorts who are seeking to infuse conservatism with new ideas and a new frame of reference for the old ones. Then there are the web gurus like Patrick Ruffini and his stalwart band at The Next Right who are trying to drag the Republican party and conservative movement into the 21st century by creating an army of connected, online activists. The libertarian conservatives have entered the fray with a new blog called The Secular Right which features a group of excellent writers and thinkers like Heather McDonald, Andrew Stuttaford, Walter Olsen, and National Review’s John Derbyshire. Reason Magazine is a little more independent but still has some solid conservatives contributing.

The libertarians perhaps have the longest way to come back and thus represent the greatest challenge to all who are interested in rebuilding the movement. The long-simmering tensions between social cons and libertarians exploded in open warfare over the Terry Schiavo issue and continued with the Harriet Meyers fiasco, immigration, and finally, the presidency of George Bush himself. Many libertarians abandoned Bush even before the 2006 electoral debacle - something which the social cons will not soon forget. Nor did libertarians care much for Sarah Palin which ended up splitting the movement into two spitting, warring factions where some believed Palin the second coming of Reagan while others shook their heads in disbelief over such nonsense.

It is a breach that will not soon be healed. Palin will remain a talisman for social conservatives into the foreseeable future. And as long as she is a figure of importance to the social cons, it is doubtful most honest libertarians (or right leaning centrists) will want to have anything to do with conservatives politically.

And that brings us to the social conservatives, many of whom are perfectly happy with how conservatism is defined although they are not pleased with how it is perceived. There appears little in the way of a reform movement for social cons. For them, conservatism needs a face lift - cosmetic changes that will keep their core beliefs about abortion, gay rights, and other cultural issues front and center but perhaps soften or reframe the debate. But as far as rethinking or even redefining conservative principles, social cons simply don’t see the need.

I apologize if I have unnecessarily been too general in my analysis of social cons because there are brilliant social conservatives who are thinking about the future and how to bring the warring factions together. The problem as I see it is with a relatively small but vocal and somewhat influential subset of social conservatives who fancy themselves gatekeepers and arbiters of conservative dogma. I call them “Splenetic Conservatives” for obvious reasons. And to my mind, they are the biggest obstacle to a conservative revival. More than any other faction, splenetic conservatives are fiercely resisting the idea of “Big Tent” conservatism and wish to purify the movement, purging it of alien ideas and personalities that espouse positions on issues at variance with their own.

This has not only had a deadening effect on intelligent debate but has placed a roadblock in the way of uniting the movement at a time when the actual numbers of people identifying themselves as “conservative” is falling. Whole swaths of the American electorate abandoned the Republican party and conservatism in the last election and now identify with the more tolerant, less dogmatic Democrats. How long this will last is an unknown. But even the failure of Obamaism will probably not be enough to win them back as long as splenetic conservatives feel they can dictate who can join their little club. Pro-Choice? Not in my house! Pro-Gay marriage? Surely, you joke. Immigration reform? Round ‘em up! War on Terror? Kill the Muslims!

Is this the way to a conservative majority? Is this the path to reforming the conservative movement so that once again we can tolerate our differences without lining someone up against a wall because they have strayed from the straight and narrow path set down by the splenetic conservatives?

The face of conservatism used to be a happy face, a confident face, an optimistic face. I suppose its easy to be happy if you are winning elections but there was more to it than that, more to it than even the fact that the naturally sunny disposition of Ronald Reagan was at the head of the movement. That optimism and happiness was born in the give and take of debate when Big Ideas - consequential, important ideas - were the stuff of bull sessions, conferences, panel discussions, and papers published at the various think tanks. All factions of conservatism had their say. There was passionate disagreements over everything. But somehow, we never lost sight of the goal - building a conservative movement where ideas translated into government action.

Somewhere along the way, we gave into the temptation to use conservative ideas to divide rather than unite. This tactical decision brought electoral success but at a price. It gave social conservatives and their splenetic base a platform to dominate the movement and the Republican party. The price for that mistake is still being paid.

I will give the splenetic conservatives credit where credit is due; they vote. And they contribute money to the movement and the Republican party. And in many parts of the United States, they are the Republican party, supplying not only funds but volunteers for campaigns who do the hard, slogging work of trying to get Republicans elected.

It is ironic that they are a larger group than most give them credit for but smaller in numbers than they themselves believe. They dominate the right side of the internet as well as many local Republican organizations (I have quit three different GOP groups because I got tired of people telling me I wasn’t a conservative). And if you cross them, you are in for much unpleasantness as many of the anti-Palin conservatives discovered. Is it important? The press has chosen to make splenetic conservatives the face of conservatism - for obvious reasons. Anything that can make conservatism look intolerant, bigoted, dangerous, and ignorant will gleefully be used to portray all conservatives in a negative light. We saw this in the waning days of the campaign when the press began to focus on “angry” crowds at McCain and Palin rallies, thus tarring all McCain supporters unfairly as yahoos and haters.

Ridding ourselves of these meddlesome and problematic screamers is not the issue. Opening their minds to the possibilities of compromise is a useless exercise - not when they see compromise as apostasy deserving of excommunication. Attempting to marginalize them would be playing their game. Besides, cutting off one’s legs as a way to heal the body is a strange way of reforming the movement. There must be a place for them at the conservative table - even if they have to be strapped down and force fed some hard truths about the exigencies of power and how futile their campaign to purify the movement when it comes to the raw exercise of democracy at the ballot box. Elections are about numbers; your side needs one more vote than the other side to win.

Michael K. Powell explains:

believe the Republican Party is on the precipice of irrelevance if it cannot rebuild a respect for civil debate-including self-criticism. The formation of powerful ideas requires the push and pull of varying viewpoints testing and informing one another. The litmus test politics that has abducted the party, has dulled the edge of its ideas, discourages those who respond to intellectual rigor, and repels too many from the party who are unwilling, as a condition of admission, to sign an oath of allegiance to a set of talking points.

Additionally, to have a future an institution must appeal to generations of the future. Appealing to youth is vital for rebirth. Yet, we seem trapped in a time warp. The Party has failed to fully comprehend how the young interact and communicate in an era transformed by the digital revolution. We do not yet appreciate their passions and their fears, nor pause to look at the world through their eyes. Battling to be a voice of technology and innovation is vital. In the world of youth, you must first “get it” before you are listened to.

The Party also must be more sober about the demographic transformation that is taking place in America. We are a browning nation, but a Party seemingly incompetent in connecting with America’s diversity and its ascendant multiculturalism. We are stuck in antiquated notions of race. My kids saw Barack Obama not as black but as modern. His race and enlightened manner of dealing with it captures how the young see themselves.

Allah (who links to a fascinating interview with Rudy Guiliani at Frum’s New Majority where hizzoner states that de-emphasizing social issues is the way back for Republicans) answers the question of what to do about the divisions in the movement quite nicely, giving the bleak alternatives:

[T]he key bit comes near the end of the second clip. He’s not asking the party to abandon social conservatism, just to nudge it towards the background and make foreign policy and fiscal responsibility the core of the platform. Which … is essentially the approach McCain took.

He’s right about the dwindling numbers of the base, though. I think the GOP’s tacit strategy now is to wait and hope for (1) a messianic figure of its own to emerge and build a new coalition through the sheer force of his/her charisma and/or (2) Democrats to overreach so egregiously that even minority voters who wouldn’t dream of voting Republican today will run screaming for the embrace of small government. All of which is fine, but the opposite of proactive. I wonder how long we’ll be waiting.

If I were Allah, I wouldn’t hold my breath for either of those eventualities. Palin is not acceptable to a large portion of the GOP if not a majority. Besides her bona fides as a “messianic figure” are not very impressive. Bobby Jindahl is an interesting man with a fascinating story but pinning hopes for a revival on the young man may be premature.

If no messiah, what then? First things first and that means uniting the movement with or without a dominant personality. Much more difficult if the latter but until someone comes along, someone has to do something to build bridges and not burn them.

Political strategist John Avlon on the Big Tent:

Somehow Republicans have lost common ground – Reagan invoked the Big Tent constantly as a way of collecting libertarian conservatives, national security conservatives, economic conservatives and social conservatives under one banner. But the spirit of outreach and inclusiveness has been drummed out of the GOP – disagreement is seen as disloyalty, and the search for heretics has become a hobby. Libertarians are losing any logical reason to affiliate with the GOP, while centrist Republicans are seen as suspect almost by definition. When Senators like Olympia Snowe or John McCain win re-election with over 70% of the vote, they are considered sell-outs rather than successes. I’ve debated conservatives on TV who were rooting for Norm Coleman to lose, because they considered him insufficiently conservative. This road leads not just to political disaster, but party suicide. Republicans who have won statewide in the Northeast tend to be centrist on social issues, especially on a woman’s right to chose and gay civil rights. Republicans must welcome social moderates into the big tent of the GOP, focus on finding common ground and not treat them as second class citizens. Remember: In a place where everyone thinks alike, nobody is thinking very much.

What do you do when reason does not work on the unreasonable? How can you be inclusive when a minority insists on using what power it possesses to maintain exclusivity?

What in God’s name is to be done with the Splenetic Conservatives?

I have taken much abuse on this site and others I write for from these galoots. I have not been shy about returning the invective either. Clearly, it doesn’t get anybody anywhere for us to shout and call each other vile names. But even when I am calm and rational about debate - not as often as I should be, I’ll grant - it’s worse than talking to a stone wall. In fact, the milder my response, the more outraged these pinheads get. It’s as if their minds function on only one level and trying to appeal to reason or even charity only enrages them further.

So I bear at least half of the blame for any untoward comments that come my way. But, after bouncing off the walls blaming each other or slinging epiteths back and forth, we end up in exactly the same position we were before: A battered, dispirited, and leaderless movement desperately in need of some kind of uniting expedient. Perhaps Obama and the Democrats will, as Allah suggests, prove to be so outrageously an anathema to conservative ideals that we will be forced to put aside our differences and unite to save the country.

Don’t bet on it. Obama is one smart, savvy pol with a gift for making even radical ideas sound reasonable. Unless the country falls apart economically, it is doubtful that anything the Democrats do will serve to bring the movement back together.

Therefore, we must look to ourselves and our own weaknesses and failings in order to re-establish Ronald Reagan’s Big Tent and find our way out of the wilderness where our own neglect and hubris has placed us. The journey to that goal has begun. How and when we get there is anyone’s guess.

As surely as a moth is drawn to  flame and Democrats to bailout money, I am pulled by some unseen force to this website and forced by dint of habit - and out of a desperation born of ennui -  to catalogue my thoughts about the world as it is revealed to me by our new President, Head of State, Commander in Chief, and, we are informed by a doe-eyed, worshipping media, our hero and savior Barack Obama.

The outpouring has been astonishing. About all that’s missing is laying palms in his path as he rode on the back of an ass into Washington. No, Robert Byrd was feeling poorly so he ended up riding in a monstrosity of an automobile nicknamed the “Obamobile” or, more prosaically, Cadillac One.

Now I love Caddies - the older the better. My dad bought a new Cadillac every two years for the last 12 years of his life and let me tell you, it was like riding in the most comfortable bed you’ve ever slept in. Going 90 MPH up US 31 to Michigan, gliding over pot holes as if they weren’t even there, it was like flying in space. You were almost weightless. A doctor could have operated in the back seat so smooth it was.

That was then. Compare this beautiful monster of a Sedan DeVille with the pug-like face of the Obamonstrosity. It almost makes me ashamed to be an American to think what GM has done to the Cadillac. If cars were dogs, we would have euthanized most American autos years ago.

American cars used to be big, smelly, swaggering, get the fu*k out of my way, powerful, unbelievably comfortable, and virtually indestructible machines of glory. So what if they only got 8 miles to the gallon? About 95% of your trips were going to be less than 8 miles anyway so what’s a gallon of gas when you can ride around in a Chariot of the Gods? Then government got into the business of designing cars and the result is what Obama is forced to ride around in - something that looks like a French interior designer with a taste for cubist art might come up with.

I remember when the first Toyatas started to appear on the roads. It was like frightening - for the person driving the American car. You were afraid to pass the little Celicas on the highway for fear of blowing them into a ditch. In the city, pulling up to one of those tin death traps at a stop light was to elicit a sneer or a giggle. Of course, Toyota has the last laugh today and Detroit is designing cars that look like the old Trabants that belched smokey oil and puttered around the streets in East Germany 20 years ago. Same boxy, useless look about them.

So our hero and savior no doubt wishes he could at least have something really kewl to ride around in but got stuck with a car that can withstand bomb and chemical attacks but lacks any style or elegance whatsoever. What’s a Messiah to do?

It certainly hasn’t stopped the press from piling on the hero worship and granting our new president Hall of Fame status before even throwing his first Major League pitch. Imbuing a politician - even a good one - with superhuman qualities is not a healthy thing in a republic. As this video shows, some even have taken to pledging to be a “servant” to The One. I think supporting Obama is just fine, a truly patriotic thing to do in this crisis to be sure. But I think it is unamerican to kneel in service to anyone - especially a politician and most especially a politician who has only been in office two days.

Two freaking days! Already the press is swooning. “HE’S DIFFERENT!” Oh my God, he’s working in his SHIRTSLEEVES in the Oval Office! He’s already “overturned the entire architecture of the Bush Torture Regime.” Democracy has been restored! Good has triumphed over evil!

Meanwhile, his tax dodging Treausry Secretary (Turbo Tax has denied he could have possibly missed not paying the taxes he owed) is elevated to the status of Wizard. He is Gandolf the Green, Holy Arbiter of the Sacred Scrolls of Bernanke, High Priest of the Bailout. Depending on which genuflecting senator you talk to, he is either “irreplaceable,” or “uniquely qualified.”

I don’t care if he’s an alchemist who can turn pork into gold, just give me an honest public servant please. Or are we to use crooks and liars to get us out of this morass? If that’s the case, get me Michael Milkin on the double! Anyone who can sell the crappy paper he ended up dumping on the unsuspecting rich twits on Wall Street is the kind of guy we need running this bailout thingy. I bet he has the economy humming along in no time.

Glad to see Hillary made it. I would send her first to Russia. There she could respond to the leader of the Liberal Democratic party in Russia who said that Condi Rice needed sex - badly. The reason for our Secretary of State’s “anti Russian statements” were because she was a single woman and hadn’t had a man in a while.

There is absolutely no doubt that anyone would say something like that about Hillary. First, who would have the nerve? Secondly, we know Bill Clinton and the idea that Hillary is lacking anything in her sex life is ludicrous. So I hope that Hillary makes even tougher anti-Russian statements just to tell of that sexist pig who insulted Condi.

Seriously, it hasn’t been a bad couple of days for Obama - quite good in a couple of respects. But are we to endure 4 or 8 years of this over the top, out of control, masturbatory media overkill? Everything about him his so perfect that any criticism at all seems harsh. Obama doesn’t necessarily invite this sort of thing but it seems to happen anyway. I’m sure we’ll have plenty of time to examine this phenomenon as the months pass and reality sets in.

Until then, I guess we’ve just got to make fun of it whenever we can…

Oath of Office - take two?

Several constitutional lawyers said President Obama should, just to be safe, retake the oath of office that was flubbed by Chief Justice John Roberts.

The 35-word oath is explicitly prescribed in the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, which begins by saying the president “shall” take the oath “before he enter on the execution of his office.”

The oath reads: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

In giving the oath, Roberts misplaced the word “faithfully,” at which point Obama paused quizzically. Roberts then corrected himself, but Obama repeated the words as Roberts initially said them.

A do-over “would take him 30 seconds, he can do it in private, it’s not a big deal, and he ought to do it just to be safe,” said Boston University constitutional scholar and Supreme Court watcher Jack Beermann. “It’s an open question whether he’s president until he takes the proper oath.”

This is truly a fascinating little tidbit of Americana. The oath, according to law, must be administered word for word. Since Roberts and Obama flubbed it, legally speaking, Obama had not fulfilled the Constitutional requirement to take the oath before assuming the presidency.

But then there’s the little matter of the 25th Amendment that made Obama president at 12 noon regardless of whether he had taken the oath or not. The amendment was passed to deal with crisis in a nuclear age with the death of a president and the immediate ascension of the Vice President to the office. The reasoning goes that the office of president can never be vacant, that if the president dies (or if both die) the next Constitutional officer in the line of succession automatically becomes president.

The article notes that both Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur took the oath twice. But both men were vice president at the time and Arthur, who was sworn in immediately, decided on a formal swearing in when he got back to Washington.

Coolidge, on the other hand, had his father, a notary public, swear him in upon hearing of the death of Harding. At the time, it was uncertain if a notary could actually swear in a president. To avoid confusion, Silent Cal had the Chief Justice swear him in when he got back to Washington.

In both of those cases, those men were following a tradition set down by John Tyler who ascended to the office of president following the death of William Henry Harrison in 1841. Constitutional scholars argue to this day whether Tyler was required to take the oath at all. (There was also a huge to do about whether Tyler was “Acting President” or actually possessed the office of president). There is nothing in the Constitution that clears up the matter and all vice presidents who have ascended to the presidency have followed Tyler’s example “for greater caution.” There is also great symbolic meaning to taking the oath which, in time of national emergency as when Kennedy was killed, can be an effective balm for the country.

But this situation is without precedent - flubbing the words of the oath. Is Obama really president? Yes, that much is clear. He was duly elected by the electoral college and the Congress certified it. From 12 noon yesterday, he was the legitimate president in the eyes of the law.

But challenges could still be forthcoming. If I were him, I’d give Roberts a call and invite him for lunch, taking the oath with a couple of witnesses “for greater caution.”

This blog post originally appears in The American Thinker

President Obama had a very difficult task yesterday. It wasn’t just the stratospheric expectations for his inaugural address engendered not only by his previous performances but also because of the frenzy whipped up by his sycophants in the press. I doubt whether even something along the lines of the Sermon on the Mount would have been good enough to live up to the build up given him by his cultists in the media.

Obama’s primary task to my mind - what I wanted to hear from him - was a commitment to bring the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a successful conclusion while maintaining the pressure on al-Qaeda around the world.

The sticking point, as always, is to define “success” in Iraq and Afghanistan. I must confess to cringing whenever I hear one of my fellow conservatives praise George Bush for bringing “democracy” to Iraq and how our efforts have created a “strong ally” in the war on terror.

Iraq may be a democracy some day. But it is far from being a free country today and even our own ambassador thinks things are still balanced on a knife’s edge. The situation is much better than it was two years ago but, all things being relative, Iraq is still a violent place that needs American assistance to keep from flying apart at the seams. Also, the latest Freedom House ranking for Iraq, based on very specific criteria is “not free.” Granted it is difficult to create a functioning democracy following so many decades of brutal dictatorship and there is no doubt that there have been some improvements even in the face of violence by terrorists who wish to destabilize the country. But for anyone to claim that Iraq is “free” or even close to being free is being disingenuous or ignorant. Holding elections does not make a nation free or democratic by itself. One glance at Gaza proves that.

We have yet to even see the beginning of the end game in domestic Iraqi politics that will play out among the various factions of Shias as they vie for power. Some of those factions are loyal to Iran or at least look to Iran for protection and leadership. The idea that Iraq will be an ally in the war on terror is still up in the air and it may yet devolve into a religious dictatorship like the one next door. The chances of that happening are ebbing but who can tell?

In short, Iraq is still messy - about what you’d expect from a nation that has gone through what the Iraqis have had to endure these last 6 years. Therefore, a definition of “success” in Iraq at a bare minimum would have to include a functioning Iraqi government capable of handling its own security. The longer we stay on in numbers capable of assisting the Iraqi government in achieving this goal, the better the chance for success. Right now, a clock is ticking on our presence in those kind of numbers with the alarm set to go off by the end of 2011. And it appears Obama wishes to speed things along. Do not be surprised if, after meeting with his military chiefs, the new president sets his own timetable for withdrawal.

In his speech yesterday, Obama said nothing about “success” regarding Iraq or Afghanistan:

We are the keepers of this legacy, guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort, even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We’ll begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard- earned peace in Afghanistan.

Indeed, it is difficult to succeed if one does not wish to. This is especially true in Afghanistan where it is becoming increasingly clear that no positive outcome will be possible there as long as al-Qaeda and the Taliban are using Pakistani territory with impunity to attack NATO troops and train suicide bombers to wreak havoc in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. I will watch with great interest as Obama deals with Pakistan. I predict he will have even less success than President Bush in getting the Pakistanis to reassert sovereignty over their own territory and kick the terrorists out. The post-Musharraf government is disinclined to make the all out effort required to defeat their enemies which means they will be at constant risk of being overthrown themselves either by the military or, less likely, a combination of forces sympathetic to the extremists.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan bleeds. And given the great reluctance most other NATO countries have shown to carry their weight in this war and commit their troops to combat, the burden of “forging a hard earned peace” will fall squarely on the shoulders of the US and the few nations who are already fighting. Will this mean that President Karzai will be forced to treat with the Taliban? He may have little choice if President Obama decides that the war is unwinnable and starts withdrawing US forces.

The key to Obama’s foreign policy can be found in this passage from his speech:

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.

They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use. Our security emanates from the justness of our cause; the force of our example; the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

Welcome words for the rest of the world - including our enemies. He is right when he states that our military power alone cannot protect us. But it goes a damn sight farther in doing so than “humility and restraint.” In fact, it appears to me that Obama is saying that “doing as we please” - protecting our own interests first which may not fit his definition of “justness” - is a mistake and that we should be “humble” and practice self-abnegation in abjuring what is in our best interests to show the world we will allow our nose to be blown off to spite our face.

An exaggeration but apropos of what Obama and the New Left have been spouting for years. If there is the stink of self-interest involved in a military action (or any other application of hard power), it is likely to be opposed. Darfur or the Congo is where we should be sending troops thus showing our selflessness to the world. Anyplace where war fighting advances or protects American interests is evil.

Just how “humility and restraint” will do anything besides make liberals feel good that the rest of the world doesn’t despise us anymore because we have subsumed our own interests to some other “higher” interest, including humanitarian goals or perhaps the will of the United Nations escapes me.

And then, there’s the idea that fanatics and thugs were just itching for George Bush to leave office so they could turn over a new leaf in our relations with them:

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.

To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society’s ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

On my radio show last night, Rich Baehr of the American Thinker pointed out that in the last decade we have freed Muslims from persecution and tyranny in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Praytell why is it the United States who should be coming hat in hand to the Muslim world? What more could we possibly do to prove our “respect?” Time for the moderate Muslims to stand up and start reciprocating. That is the true way forward with US-Muslim relations.

And who but a liberal could actually believe that the thugs and fanatics care one whit about “the people” in their countries and what they think? All they care about is if someone looks sideways at the regime, they are lined up against a wall and shot. Being “on the wrong side of history” is an occupational hazard for the Assads, the Castros, the Chavez’s, and the fanatical mullahs of the world. They seem to be surviving just fine, thank you.

And why should any of those peace loving gentlemen “unclench their fist” when they can achieve so much more dealing with a president who wishes to approach them with “humility and restraint?” Most of the animosity directed against America by the brutes of the world is, as Obama points out, manufactured internally in order to justify oppression. Only Iran has broadened their anti-Americanism to include proxies like Hezbullah and, potentially, Hamas. The question remains why should our enemies extend a hand in friendship or even civility? As we have already seen, the inauguration of Obama has changed nothing, altered no positions, softened any hearts.

I will not refer to Obama as naive in deference to my friend and frequent commenter Michael Reynolds who has almost convinced me that the new president has a realistic take on our enemies. But will approaching Iran with “humility and restraint” actually do anything except risk the overture being thrown back in your face with the typical derisiveness demonstrated by the Iranian leadership?

I have a feeling we will find out over the coming months.

You won’t want to miss tonight’s Rick Moran Show,, one of the most popular conservative talk shows on Blog Talk Radio.

Tonight, I welcome Rich Baehr of the American Thinker, Jennifer Rubin of Commentary Magazine, Ed Morrissey of Hot Air, and Stephen Green of Vodkapundit to talk about the inauguration.

The show will air from 7:00 - 8:00 PM Central time. You can access the live stream here. A podcast will be available for streaming or download shortly after the end of the broadcast.

Click on the stream below and join in on what one wag called a “Wayne’s World for adults.”

The Chat Room will open around 15 minutes before the show opens,

Also, if you’d like to call in and put your two cents in, you can dial (718) 664-9764.

If the writers aren’t going to give us much to talk about, I suppose it’s up to me to breathe some life into this show.

Truly, the series has never gotten off to such a slow start. There are a couple of reasons for that, in my opinion. First, too many plot threads and not enough of them are really converging. That means a lot of exposition and build up. Whether this means that in a few weeks we are going on a roller coaster ride, I don’t know. The potential is still there but if we get a few more episodes like the one last night, they are going to bleed viewers like someone cut their arm off with a hacksaw.

Secondly, let’s face it; not enough action. For an “Action Series” there have been few explosions, fewer gun fights, and little in the way of suspense. I would hate to think that this is in deference to critics who have been saying the show is too violent for years but in the Age of Obama, anything is possible.

Thirdly, the story is just not very compelling - yet. The CIP Module has only been used once and that for only a demonstration. The threat is real but hardly the kind of danger that makes one shudder. “Uh-oh…the power is out…” is not the stuff of terror (unless you’re in a darkened bedroom, in the sack with Janeane Garafalo and don’t know it until it’s too late).

But Jack is Jack and that counts for something. He is still the best hope to grab the module before something really bad happens - like Dubaku mixing sewage in with our drinking water and giving everyone an upset stomach. And in this episode, he even proves how valuable he is to the terrorist Emerson by figuring out how to get Moboto and his wife out the safe room.

This is the Tao of Jack. That he has always had the potential for both good and evil in equal measures. That in some alternate universe, he is no doubt the world’s #1 terrorist. His skills as a warrior and a killer could be put to equal use by both the good guys and the bad guys. It is his loyalty and sense of duty that keep him on the straight and narrow and give him his mission in life; defeat the evil designs of evil men who would harm us for their own selfish ends.

SUMMARY

In what has to be the unintentionally comic moment of the series to date, Moss finds out that Renee Walker tortured Tanner in order to get the info about the Moboto snatch. What’s funny is that the Attorney General, after receiving a complaint from Tanner’s lawyers, has sent over a couple of bureaucratic flunkies to question Walker - right in the middle of a terrorist crisis - and they insist that they absolutely must talk to Janis since she was involved in this crime.

The flunkies make several appearances throughout the episode, each one more hilarious than the last. Their tiny bureaucratic minds can’t seem to grasp that FBI counter terrorist employees might be a touch busy during a crisis that threatens millions of Americans. Their cluelessness is priceless.

Meanwhile, it is apparent that the few hours Walker spent with Jack did her a world of good. Not only did she torture Tanner to get information, she has become quite adept at telling her boss to take a long step off a short porch. In her conversation with Moss (who definitely has the hots for her), she ignored his orders to come back to headquarters in favor of “making things right” by recapturing Tony and, we assume, putting a bullet in Jack. Perhaps if she spent even more time with Jack, she would be capable of not only ignoring her boss but even killing him as Jack reluctantly was forced to do to Ryan Chappell in season 4.

At Moboto’s house, the former Prime Minister and his wife are in the safe room where it dawns on the future American puppet in Sangala that he might be willing to die for his country but perhaps his wife has other ideas. He tries to buck her up but we can see that she is going to be a weak link.

Emerson tries the old “I’ll give you one minute to come out or the trusted aide gets it” bit but it doesn’t work. But before Emerson can pull the trigger and get blood and brains all over his beautiful camel hair coat Moboto’s aide gets a call on his cell from the FBI, thus alerting Emerson to the fact that they better get out of there before the feds storm the place.

Tony reminds Jack out of earshot of Emerson that they need Moboto in order to get close to Dubaku so Jack convinces the terrorist that he can get the Prime Minister out of the safe room by introducing poison gas into the ventilation system. Where Bauer acquired the knowledge to turn relatively harmless household cleaning products into a weapon of mass destruction we don’t know. But Jack proves he knows his way around a kitchen - at least where the cleaning stuff is kept - and finds the chemicals he needs.

After cooking up the mix of what I am told in the forums is probably a combination of bleach and ammonia-based glass cleaner and placing it in the vent, the gas begins to enter the safe room. Quite quickly, Moboto and his wife begin to choke on the mixture. “Close your eyes and let it happen,” her loving husband whispers to his terrified wife. Her eyes get as big as saucers as she is obviously thinking, “Speak for yourself, darling.” She crawls to the door and opens it thus effecting her husband’s capture.

SM Walker shows up just as Jack and Emerson are escorting Moboto and his wife to the van and, predictably, is caught as she is talking to Moss. Emerson is ready to kill her right there but Jack points out they need to know what she knows in order to determine how much damage Tanner’s blabbing did. The terrorist calls his contact working with Dubaku who promises to pump their FBI source to determine the extent of the fed’s knowledge of their plans.

The First Gentleman, having been informed by his dead son’s former fiancee Samantha that the kid had indeed been murdered and did not commit suicide, gets his trusted Secret Service agent Brian (who is obviously bent and hip deep in the conspiracy) to find someone who can decode the memory stick Sam gave him. Brian takes the FG to an apartment.

Back at the White House, the President has decided to go ahead with the military action in Sangala even though it will cause Dubaku to use the CIP Module and kill Americans. National Security Advisor Kamin (who opposes the invasion) not so gently points out that she was elected to protect American livese, not Sangalese. Her answer is that she is protecting Americans by “not giving in to blackmail and threats.” She also makes the Obama arguement that by invading Sangala and getting our young men killed even though we have no vital interests in that bloody country, we have re-established our “moral authority” in the world.

This is nuts and typical liberal baloney. The only people who care about our “moral authority” are European leftists who don’t grant us any such thing no matter who the president is. And the idea of sacrificing American lives in order to make us feel good about ourselves is insane. But I suppose we better get used to it. Our military actions will now be done for the good of the world and not because it protects American lives and American interests.

Bad news for Walker when the American traitor working with Dubaku calls Emerson back telling him that Tanner only spilled the kidnapping plot and that he should now kill Renee before he arrives. Dubaku is getting impatient. He wants to kill Americans (what genocidal killer worth his salt wouldn’t want to) and is chafing at the delay by the White House to pull the troops back. The American traitor suggests he use the CIP Module in order to show the president how serious he is. That seems to calm him down a bit.

Meanwhile, the FG Henry and Brian arrive at the apartment where Taylor expects the memory stick to be decoded. Immediately, Henry sees that he is at Sam’s apartment. Alas, Brian has spiked Henry’s Starbuck’s double shot latte with extra milk and whipped cream with a nerve agent that paralyzes him. While lying prostrate, the FG hears Brian tell another agent who is covering Sam to bring her over so they can arrange a murder-suicide scene for the authorities. Sam seems reluctant but obedient when the other Secret Service agent gets her to follow him.

Emerson directs the van to a construction site that is conveniently empty in the middle of the day. Still not trusting Jack entirely, he orders Bauer to kill Walker. “Jack - the ditch,” is all he says. The terrified FBI agent tells Jack she won’t beg for her life and is understandably reluctant to move very quickly. Jack whispers in her ear to trust him and she will live which no doubt was the nicest thing Jack ever said to her. With Emerson watching closely, Jack orders Walker to kneel and pulls the trigger.

Of course, he didn’t aim for her head but her neck which not only knocked her over convincingly but caused a lot of blood to be visible. Jack throws a plastic tarp over Renee and she appears safe.

Now, we know that SM Walker is one tough cookie but tell me true, if you were shot in the neck could you keep from screaming bloody murder? Renee doesn’t utter a sound - even when Emerson orders Tony and Jack to bury her. This they do a little reluctantly, throwing dirt over the FBI agent while she looks on in horror. The final shot - a POV from Renee’s eyes - shows Jack flinging a bunch of dirt over her eyes which blacks out the scene and leaves us wondering how she is going to breathe.

BODY COUNT

Not even a sniff of gunpowder in this episode. Strangely (and unrealistically) Emerson leaves one of Moboto’s security guys alive.

Jack: 1/2
Show: 7

My latest at PJ Media is up. It examines the historic nature of Obama’s inauguration; that we have gone from “Whites only” drinking fountains to toasting an African American president in the White House within the span of my lifetime:

A sample:

Is it really possible we have gone from “Whites Only” drinking fountains to toasting an African American president in the White House within my own lifetime? I can easily recall the civil rights story told nightly through the grainy news film of the time. Images both unforgettable and horrifying were a nightly staple of the news. The dogs and fire hoses being let loose upon children. The beatings of demonstrators who sat stoically, knowing full well the blows were coming and refusing to fight back. And always, the dour, glowering faces of the southern authorities who resisted to the last.

No, the election and inauguration of President Obama does not banish racism or discrimination from America. That happy event is still in the future. But inaugurating Obama allows us a glimpse of such a future on the distant horizon, barely discernible but now a definite form shimmering in the morning sun. And a clear path to that goal is in front of us just waiting for us to take the first step.

Read the whole thing.