Via John Nolte at Big Hollywood:

Tom Hanks: America Wants to ‘Annihilate’ Terrorists Because ‘They’re Different’

by John Nolte

Over the weekend, Time Magazine published a long, glowing profile of Tom Hanks to help promote his upcoming HBO miniseries “The Pacific.” And as with all things entertainment media, the subject is never challenged or even made to shift uncomfortably in his seat. The push to ascend Hanks to “national treasure” status is clearly on.

Hanks does seem to be a genuinely nice man and the work he’s done to bring American history to life on film is impressive, especially during a time when the singling out of America’s exceptionalism is more and more frowned upon in artistic and academic circles. ”From the Earth to the Moon,” “Band of Brothers,” and “John Adams” are not only artistic achievements, but in this MTV-addled culture, might be the best hope of teaching America’s youth about the unique history and greatness of this nation. And I suspect ”The Pacific,” the 10-part miniseries premiering this Sunday on HBO (which Big Hollywood’s Michael Broderick will cover extensively) will be a worthy addition to what came before.

But when it comes to leftist Hollywood, whenever Tinseltown and America meet, you have to brace yourself for it — and by “it” I mean the leftist sucker punch. Throughout, Hanks sounds perfectly reasonable, intelligent and even patriotic for a couple of thousand words. But of course that’s just the lure to get us on his side before we’re walloped with this left cross: [emphasis mine]

[Hanks] doesn’t see the series as simply eye-opening history. He hopes it offers Americans a chance to ponder the sacrifices of our current soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. “From the outset, we wanted to make people wonder how our troops can re-enter society in the first place,” Hanks says. “How could they just pick up their lives and get on with the rest of us? Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”

There’s no such thing as a definitive history. But what was once a passing interest for Hanks has become an obsession. He’s a man on a mission to make our back pages come alive, to keep overhauling the history we know and, in the process, get us to understand not just the past but the choices we make today.

No matter how many times you read this passage the context is clear. By “different” Hanks is clearly referring to race, culture and religion, not ideology.

Really, we wanted to annihilate the Japanese because they were different, because we saw them as “yellow, slant-eyed dogs that believed in different gods?” I thought it was due to the fact that “we viewed them” as barbaric imperialists who had attacked us first and wanted to enslave the world.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/03/09/tom-hanks-america-wants-to-annihilate-terrorists-because-theyre-different/

By JAY REEVES (AP) – 3 hours ago

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama's State of the Union address was "very troubling" and the annual speech has "degenerated to a political pep rally."

Obama chided the court, with the justices seated before him in their black robes, for its decision on a campaign finance case.

Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

"So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.

"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gyvfRvSPtr5INaLpoyt0_bd8V0AwD9EBCSAG0

AP-GfK Poll: Public wants elusive accord on health

WASHINGTON – Americans and their lawmakers are dramatically out of sync on health care, with large majorities of people looking for bipartisan cooperation that's nowhere in sight.

A new Associated Press-GfK Poll finds a widespread hunger for improvements to the health care system, which suggests President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies have a political opening to push their plan. Half of all Americans say health care should be changed a lot or "a great deal," and only 4 percent say it shouldn't be changed at all.

...

More than four in five Americans say it's important that any health care plan have support from both parties. And 68 percent say the president and congressional Democrats should keep trying to cut a deal with Republicans rather than pass a bill with no GOP support.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100309/ap_on_bi_ge/us_ap_poll_health_care

Stupak: There's No Deal, And I Won't Agree to a Promise to Fix the Bill in the Future

An interview with THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Via the Corner blog:

Iraq Elections: Now the Fun Begins . . .   [Michael Rubin]

Yesterday's elections in Iraq appear to have gone smoothly, and preliminary estimates suggest 55–60% turnout. Now, however, the rough patch will begin. Early estimates suggest incumbent Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki won perhaps a third of the vote with former interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi second. Neither, however, came close to a majority. Maliki may have won just one-third. Now the horse-trading will begin.

The CIA favors Ayad Allawi, but should proceed with caution. While Allawi paints himself as the secularist and liberal hope, he has a past, not just as a Baathist in the 1970s, but also as interim Prime Minister in 2004–2005. Iraqis are upset with corruption — and many of Maliki's ministers are expert at it — but Allawi hemorrhaged popularity after his term precisely because his administration became so tainted with corruption. And while Allawi is attractive to many in the United States because he is the least pro-Iranian, his ties to Syria — the gateway for foreign fighters entering Iraq — is troubling. He is unpopular among many Shi'a for ordering the assault on Najaf in November 2004 although, frankly, I'm glad he did so given the importance of that move in neutralizing Muqtada al-Sadr. Allawi has also lost credibility by living in the Green Zone, when he's in Iraq at all: That's good for his relations with U.S. diplomats, but bad for relations with Iraqis.

Maliki may have won the plurality, but Iraqis have a history now (thankfully) of coalescing against the incumbent fearing he will become too powerful. This could open the path for a third party — perhaps someone from the Iraqi National Alliance, or perhaps someone from Allawi's or Maliki's list, but not either of them — to become a compromise candidate. In addition, all these lists are fractious: The Kurds may enforce party loyalty, but the Shi'a can't and so we might have some candidates bolt and announce that they will go their own way.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGVhNWI2NGUzYzY2MzJhODZhZTgyMmIwOTYwMWRkZTI=

Via Institute for War and Peace Reporting:

Post-Election Political Deadlock Expected

Analysts, politicians concerned over security and power-sharing after parliamentary vote.

By Ali Kareem in Baghdad and Hemin H Lihony in Sulaimaniyah (ICR No. 326, 5-Mar-10)

Iraq is headed for a post-election political deadlock that could lead to security problems and deepen sectarian rifts, politicians and analysts say.

The Iraqi constitution states that a new government should be formed within a month of election results being certified. But the usual delays caused by parties horse-trading over the creation of a ruling coalition will be exacerbated this time around because there is likely to be good deal of protracted deal-making over the appointment of a president who, unlike in the past, will have substantial power.

Some politicians and analysts worry that the power vacuum could be exploited by extremists.

http://iwpr.net/?p=icr&s=f&o=360964&apc_state=henh

Via Allahpundit:

Pelosi: We Must Pass The Health Care Bill So That We Can Find Out What’s In It

From Pelosi’s speech today to the 2010 Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties.

“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other.  But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket.  Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. 

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/pelosi_we_must_pass_the_health_care_bill_so_that_we_can_find_out_whats_in_i/

Obamacare Is a Budgetary Disaster   [James C. Capretta]

Congressman Paul Ryan’s systematic dismantling of the argument that Obamacare would cut the budget deficit, delivered at the Blair House “summit” meeting, has gotten a lot of attention in recent days, and deservedly so. The Wall Street Journal ran the full text of his presentation on its opinion page yesterday and amplified his arguments in an editorial of its own. At Blair House, neither the president nor any other Democrat present offered a direct rebuttal to Ryan’s critique. The president chose to change the subject instead.

This week, however, top administration officials have come forward with a belated defense — of sorts.

First, OMB director Peter Orszag penned a blog post taking issue with one of Ryan’s points, namely that the plan relies on ten years of offsets to pay for only six years of spending. And today, Orszag and White House health-reform czar Nancy-Ann DeParle have an op-ed in the Washington Post that expands upon Orszag’s post.

Orszag and DeParle start by agreeing with Ryan that delaying the start date of an entitlement expansion is a tried-and-true budget gimmick, designed to push the full cost of the additional spending outside of the “budget window” covered by a cost estimate.

But, not to worry, they say. In this instance, it’s not a gimmick because the deficit reduction from their plan just keeps growing over time. They claim the president’s health plan would produce deficit reduction of $100 billion over ten years and $1 trillion in the second decade.

Of course, there’s another reason besides balancing revenue and spending to push the start of an entitlement back, and that’s to make the ten-year cost look much smaller than it really is. Recall that the president promised in his address to Congress last September to deliver a bill that costs only “$900 billion” over a decade. The new entitlements the Democrats want to create would cost much, much more than $90 billion per year. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says they will cost about $200 billion per year by 2019. And so, to get the media to now say his plan costs only “$1 trillion” (what’s $100 billion among friends!), the administration delays the coverage expansion provisions until 2014. Never mind that the president also says the uninsured can’t wait a day longer for the legislation. Once enacted, he would make them wait — for four years.

http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmRmNzg2NDM4MGJiMWIzMTAzMzY1YWQ0Mjc5ZTJkYTc=

Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) stressed Sunday that the votes of retiring Dems such as himself aren't necessarily in the bag.

Appearing across from Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) on CNN's "State of the Union," Baird heartily agreed in principle with the need to reform healthcare but expressed reservations about the current bills. He responded "yes" when host Candy Crowley asked if he would vote against the current proposals even if it meant that healthcare reform went down.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/85317-baird-healthcare-votes-of-retiring-dems-arent-necessarily-in-the-bag

March 8, 2010 4:00 A.M.

A Spanish 51st State?
Puerto Rico draws closer to statehood.

Imagine that New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, citing his state’s “unique linguistic and cultural heritage,” signed into law a bill with the following provisions:

 

1)    English and Spanish are the co-official languages of New Mexico, but government agencies, courts, and the legislature will operate in Spanish, with English translations available only upon request.

2)    English will be taught in New Mexico’s schools as a foreign language, with students receiving a mandatory 50 minutes of instruction per day in English.

3)    New Mexico will seek an exemption from the provisions of federal law that require students with limited English proficiency to be given standardized tests in English within three years.

Governor Richardson is a colorful character, but not that colorful. As a presidential candidate in 2004, he passionately argued that Spanish should not be a co-official language with English, let alone be given “first language” status.

Remarkably, Nancy Pelosi will soon bring to the floor a bill that would allow Puerto Rico to become the 51st U.S. state without changing policies that are identical to those in our hypothetical New Mexico. It is rumored that the Puerto Rico Democracy Act (H.R. 2499) will be placed on the rarely used “suspension calendar,” barring any floor amendments and suggesting that the measure is less about democracy than about Democratic electoral power.

Puerto Rico’s political status is complex, and the Act counts 58 Republicans among its 181 co-sponsors, including thoughtful conservatives like Indiana’s Mike Pence. Whatever the complexities, though, thoughtful people should agree that no state in the Union legally treats English as its “second” language, let alone as a foreign language, and a Puerto Rican state should not be an exception.

http://article.nationalreview.com/426926/a-spanish-51st-state/tim-schultz

March 8, 2010 4:00 A.M.

Blanche: A Verb Meaning ‘to Cook in Hot Water’
Other Than That, How Are You Playing, Mrs. Lincoln?

The quick read on Arkansas lieutenant governor Bill Halter’s bid for the U.S. Senate has been that Blanche Lincoln, one of the most endangered Democrats in the Senate, being caught as she is between the agenda of a liberal administration and the conservative electorate of her home state, will be forced to shift to the left in a bid to avoid a primary defeat.

But there are two hitches in that interpretation. First of all, Lincoln is reacting to the challenge by explicitly separating herself from the Democratic-party label — which has seen better days in Arkansas. Second, for a progressive alternative, Halter doesn’t seem that eager to paint himself as more liberal than Lincoln on very many big issues.

Lincoln’s first ad would probably get applauded at any tea party. She mocks Congress as a bunch of children fighting and throwing money around, declaring, “This is why I voted against giving more money to Wall Street, against the auto-company bailout, against the public-option health-care plan, and against the cap-and-trade bill that would have increased energy costs for Arkansans. None of those were right for Arkansas. Some in my party didn’t like it very much. But I approve this message because I don’t answer to my party. I answer to Arkansas.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/427152/blanche-a-verb-meaning-to-cook-in-hot-water/jim-geraghty

Crist down big

Support for Charlie Crist from conservative voters has pretty much evaporated, and that's allowed Marco Rubio to build a 32 point lead in the Republican primary for Senate.

Rubio now leads Crist 60-28, including a staggering 71-17 lead with conservatives. Crist has a 49-36 advantage with party moderates, but they account for just 31% of likely primary voters compared to 65% who describe themselves as conservative.

Rubio is benefiting from a widely held sentiment among Florida GOP voters that Congressional Republicans are too liberal and that Crist would add to the problem. 41% of them think that the party leadership in Washington is too liberal, and with those folks Rubio holds an 83-10 lead. 50% think that Crist himself is too liberal and with those voters Rubio's advantage expands even wider to 90-5.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/03/crist-down-big.html

Avoid land grabs while downsizing Detroit

Marc Scribner

If history is any guide, Mayor Dave Bing's recent announcement that he intends to pursue aggressive central planning to shrink Detroit is bad news. For a city notorious for eminent domain abuse and corruption, Detroit residents should be vigilant about Bing's plan.

The reason that the mayor wants to downsize the city is understandable. Many people and businesses have departed, leaving huge swaths of the city where the city provides police, fire and garbage services for very few residents. By forcing some residents to move, the city can consolidate neighborhoods, save money as well as put together coherent tracts of property for sale to potential developers.

But many of the areas in question are sparsely populated by mostly low-income residents or dilapidated to the point where the city has a reasonable case designating the properties as public nuisances. Because of these two facts, the city should neither forgo the normal bargaining process nor condemn the dilapidated parcels through eminent domain.

http://detnews.com/article/20100309/OPINION01/3090324/1008/opinion01/Avoid-land-grabs-while-downsizing-Detroit

Seven Muslims arrested over 'plot to kill cartoonist'

Seven Muslims were arrested in the Irish Republic today over an alleged plot to assassinate a Swedish cartoonist who depicted the Prophet Mohammed with the body of a dog, police said.

Al Qaeda put a $100,000 bounty on the head of cartoonist Lars Vilks after a newspaper published his cartoon.

The four men and three women were detained after an investigation involving European security agencies and the United States’ CIA and FBI.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7055282.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093