The Chicago Sun-Times has published a letter from Erin Kotecki Vest to Michelle Obama, wife of Barack. I encourage you to read the whole letter — although I agree with one of the commenters that it is very creepy. Here’s an excerpt referring to Obama’s decision on running for President:

I look at my husband and my two beautiful children, and I wonder how on earth you and your family will make this decision. It would be a sacrifice, no question. Possibly the biggest sacrifice a family could make. We all know it wouldn’t just be the usual pressures of the job or public life, it could very well mean the word no one wants to say but everyone is thinking: “assassination.”

No one wants to say it except, apparently, Vest. I have never heard or read any mention of it until now. And everyone is thinking assassination? Everyone? I don’t think so! Perhaps there are a few nutjobs out there that would want to, but the likelihood that anyone will try it is slim and the probability that they could succeed is even lower. Is Vest that cynical, or is this a veiled attempt to threaten Obama? Is this her idea of a clever way to raise the specter of assassination without making an overt threat?

Assuming this is not an underhanded threat, Vest is obviously a liberal if she likes Obama that much. So she seems to be convinced that some of those mean old conservatives will try to kill Obama if it looks like he has any chance to become President. If so, what could be the basis for her conviction? The last Democrat President to be assassinated was John Kennedy, and he wasn’t that much of a liberal. Since then there have been two serious attempts against Presidents, and both of them were Republicans (Ford and Reagan). (I’m not counting the rabbit attack on Jimmy Carter.) The only potential candidate that I recall being assassinated in recent history was Robert Kennedy. Though conspiracy theories abound, no political conspiracy has been found to be responible for any of these assassinations or attempts. It appears that they were all perpetrated by kooks acting more or less alone. I don’t see a pattern based on ideology. Nor does it seem that a President or candidate has to be black in order to be targeted.

I’ve already said that I don’t want Obama to be President because he is too liberal and not American enough. But I want people to vote against him, not shoot him. I couldn’t care less that he is black.

(via Teri O’Brien)

The Associated Press reports that Wisconsin’s revenue agency sent as many as 170,000 forms to taxpayers with mailing labels mistakenly printed with their Social Security numbers.  The agency blamed the problem on a computer error. 

That’s like blaming the hammer when you smash your thumb.  Having used and programmed computers since 1962 I can assure you that digital computers almost never make errors.  When they do the result is usually immediately obvious.  Most all ‘computer errors’ are actually errors made by the operator or the programmer.

Have you become bored with the endless apologies* coming from celebrities and politicians? I certainly have. I’d prefer that they just shut up and quietly change their behavior if they truly think their behavior was bad and they think they can change. But, if they feel compelled to say something publicly I wish they would just admit that their personality is flawed (or that they are just plain dumb) and that given an opportunity they will probably make a fool of themselves again.

Which of the following statements would you rather hear?

• I sincerely apologize for my crude behavior. What I said and did is not at all like me. I don’t know what happened. Perhaps it was the alcohol I consumed earlier. Perhaps something just snapped inside me. Perhaps it was the pressure I’ve been under lately. Whatever it was I assure you that is not me and it won’t happen again.

• I do regret my crude behavior — and I will regret it the next time it happens. Look people, I’m an imperfect person. I tend to lose control occasionally. In fact, I sometimes fly into a violent rage. I’m just thankful that I haven’t permanently injured anyone — yet. I sincerely wish that I could rid myself of this personality flaw but I have to admit that it’s probably not going to happen. My best advice to you is that when I do go off, just get out of my way.

John Kerry, especially, should give up apologizing because he usually screws up the apology. He should follow Charlie Rangel’s example. Rangel doesn’t apologize because he knows that everyone knows his stupid statements are all politically motivated.

Why do Mel Gibson and Michael Richards feel the need to apologize to the world when their offensive remarks were made before only a few people? The most they should do is issue a statement saying that they have apologized privately to the people they offended and that’s all they will be saying on the matter. I don’t buy the proposition that everything a celebrity does is a public matter. But mostly I just don’t care what they do or why they do it. Unless they do it to me or mine.  Then I will confront them personally.

I suspect that the weight people put on apologies comes from childhood. I’ve noticed that more and more parents appear to believe that forcing their children to apologize for bad behavior is punishment enough. I’m afraid that this just teaches children that they can get away with anything as long as they are willing to apologize. Children know that apologies are just words.

*For a summary of some apologies from the past year see Kathleen Parker’s recent column at Townhall.com.

Thomas Sowell has a series of columns on Townhall.com titled, A Dangerous Obsession.  The columns are about the media’s and academia’s unending obsession with “gaps” and “disparities” in income.  I highly recommend that you read them — and anything else he writes.  If politicians paid more attention to what he says the world would be a better place.  To date he has published four columns in the series:  Part I, Part II, Part III and Part IV.

Update:  Here’s Part V.

The Washington Post reports:

The Bush administration has decided to propose listing the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, putting the U.S. government on record as saying that global warming could drive one of the world’s most recognizable animals out of existence.

Well, global warming could do a lot of things if global warming ever becomes the threat that a lot of alarmists, like Al Gore, say that it will. So far, nothing to really be concerned about has happened. For those inclined to join the global warming hysteria, please understand that there have been dire warnings of calamitous climate change throughout recent history — and none of them have occurred. Jeff Jacoby sheds some light on this in a recent column on Townhall.com.

More from the WaPo:

Because scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide from power-plant and vehicle emissions is helping drive climate change worldwide, putting polar bears on the endangered species list raises the legal question of whether the government would be required to compel U.S. industries to curb their carbon dioxide output.

Scientists conclude a lot of things every day, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are right and it doesn’t necessarily mean that we should be concerned about it if they are right. A scientist at the University of Wisconsin has concluded that the US Government, not 19 radical Islamists, destroyed the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11/01. A scientist at Idaho State University has concluded that the legendary Sasquatch or ‘Bigfoot’ exists in the forests of the Northwest. I’m not saying that we should pay no attention to what scientists conclude; I’m saying that we should wait until we have real evidence of a serious problem, not just predictions from models, before taking drastic and expensive action.

Aside from all that, it is clear that the alarmists think they have come up with a way to force the government to slap restrictions on industries that produce carbon dioxide as a byproduct. I suspect that these people care more about restricting industry than they care about polar bears.

The WaPo reports that an Interior Department official said that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials have concluded that polar bears could be endangered within 45 years. He didn’t say that they are endangered now. He didn’t say that they will be extinct in 45 years. He didn’t even say that they will be endangered within 45 years. Despite the fact that it is just a possibility that the polar bears will become endangered and despite the fact that it might take 45 years for them to become endangered, the government wants to list the polar bear as threatened now under the Endangered Species Act.

So what if the polar bears are at risk of becoming extinct? What have polar bears done for you? Yes, they are beautiful animals and their cubs are cute and cuddly (looking), but I don’t know of any real service that they perform for the world other than helping to control the seal population.

The environmental bureaucracies, and others, require us to prepare impact statements for all commercial development projects. So why don’t we require the government to show how the extinction of polar bears will impact the world to an extent that justifies the cost of preventing their extinction. It’s time for an end to the idea that all species should be saved regardless of the cost. Anyway, who are we to say that all species should stay around forever?

Update:  Steven Milloy has more on this at FoxNews.com.  From his article:

Let’s keep in mind that polar bears have survived much warmer times than we are now experiencing – like 1,000 years ago when the Vikings farmed Greenland during the Medieval Climate Optimum and 5,000-9,000 years ago during the period known as the Holocene Climate Optimum.

I’ve already said that I’m not ready for a man named Barack Hussein Obama to be President of the United States. That’s because I don’t think he is American enough; it’s not because he is considered a black man. His father was born and spent most of his life in Africa. Barack spent his formative years in Indonesia. Aside from all that, his liberal views and record are reason enough for me not to vote for him.

But that is not what this post is about. It occurred to me that the Obama phenomenon is strong evidence that racism is not as prevalent in America as the race industry claims. How could he generate the interest and poll numbers that are being reported if racism is such a huge problem? Obviously large numbers of non-blacks are indicating their support for him.

I wonder if the race industry is getting concerned. Perhaps they should worry that a black man named Barack Hussein Obama getting elected President of the United States might hurt their business.

On second thought the Obama phenomenon may not say anything at all about the lack of racism in America. It might just indicate how fearful some Americans are that Hillary Clinton could become President if no dramatic alternative is produced.

Even before The Apprentice I thought of Donald Trump as a comical figure.  I know that is not an accurate description of him because he couldn’t have become so rich without at least a little substance.  But it sure is hard to see.

This is why I was so amused and pleased to find that Suzanne Fields has labeled him “a fatuous billionaire.”  Fatuous is a much better word than comical to describe Trump.  He certainly is “foolish or silly, especially in a smug or self-satisfied way” (American Heritage Dictionary).  I’m confident that the man has no clue that the biggest draw for The Apprentice is his fatuous behavior rather than his business acumen.  I’m also confident that the producers of the show do have a clue.

The New York Times reports that protectors, too, gather profits from identity theft:

It is not just criminals who are profiting from identity theft; financial institutions are making money, too. Fear of identity theft has helped give rise to a nearly billion-dollar business in credit-monitoring services sold by the major credit bureaus – companies like Equifax, Experian and TransUnion – as well as direct marketers and banks.

I have always been suspicious of industries peddling security. Why? Because it is in their best interest for us to feel insecure, not for us to feel secure. How many home security systems are going to be sold if no homes are being burglarized? How many anti-virus applications are going to be sold if no computers are being infected? The claim that the reason there are no burglaries or infections is that you have purchased and installed security can only go so far. Remember the story about the man standing in the middle of the street jumping around and waving his arms? When asked about his strange behavior he said that he was keeping the elephants away. How much are you willing to pay this man to guard your street?

I have no evidence that home security companies are burglarizing homes, that virus protection companies are spreading viruses, or that the credit bureaus are stealing identities. Most likely there are plenty of scumbags out there that do it on their own, but I’m still suspicious. After all, the protection rackets offered a form of security: If you pay us we won’t hurt you or trash your place of business.

I’ve previously given my executive summary of the actions we need to take  in Iraq. Now I’ll summarize the Iraq Study Group’s recommendation: We need to go forth and make nice with any and everyone to convince them that we all just need to get along.

I don’t believe I have ever seen a more pedestrian product come from such a supposedly august body. They cavalierly propose simplistic approaches to extremely complex problems: Iran’s and Syria’s interference in the region; the Arab/Israeli problem. They base their recommendations on unsupported assumptions. The report comes across as a whole lot of wishful thinking and not much substance. Some excerpts from the report’s executive summary and my comments follow.

The policies and actions of Iraq’s neighbors greatly affect its stability and prosperity. No country in the region will benefit in the long term from a chaotic Iraq. Yet Iraq’s neighbors are not doing enough to help Iraq achieve stability. Some are undercutting stability.

This is an example of the pervasive flawed logic in the report. It says that no country will benefit in the long term from a chaotic Iraq. But what about in the short term? What is their definition of long term? Iran may not be trying to help Iraq achieve stability now because they know that they will benefit more in the long term if the US fails and they then move in and save Iraq, or they at least save the Shiites.

Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively.

The ISG presses on with the unsound assumption that Iran and Syria have an “interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq.” Even if they do want to avoid chaos in Iraq it doesn’t mean that they want to help the US — unless they get huge concessions.

The United States must adjust its role in Iraq to encourage the Iraqi people to take control of their own destiny.

I thought that was our role since shortly after the fall of the Saddam regime. In fact, I have been critical of that role because I think that we should have taken control of the country and maintained control until it was stable and then installed an Iraqi government.

By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq.

Not necessary for force protection? They must expect a lot of progress by 2008. The 140,000 troops there now aren’t able to protect themselves.

It is the unanimous view of the Iraq Study Group that these recommendations offer a new way forward for the United States in Iraq and the region. They are comprehensive and need to be implemented in a coordinated fashion. They should not be separated or carried out in isolation.

Translation: We’ve done all the thinking that needs to be done. Mere mortals should not dare to mess with our work. Sorry guys, I’m ROFL. We can only hope that someone in the Administration does take it apart — or they ignore it completely.

What do George Foreman and Lawrence Eagleburger have in common?  No, they didn’t both lose a match to Muhammad Ali, shill for a low-fat grill, serve as Secretary of State, or name all their sons George.  Look for the answer in an update tomorrow.

Update:  Eagleburger didn’t name all his sons George, as Foreman did, but he did name all of them Lawrence.