Today’s Boston Globe features an editorial that points out the increasing costs of college education and suggests, as an antidote, that we get private lenders out of the business of offering student loans — and have the government do so directly, instead of simply guaranteeing them.

This article raises some interesting questions — albeit ones the Globe is not asking.

“As tuitions skyrocket, more students are being priced out of a college education.” For years, the cost of college education has, indeed, skyrocketed — well beyond the rate of inflation. Has anyone asked the colleges why their costs keep going up so rapidly? Where is all that money (much of it either taxpayer-guaranteed or coming directly from taxpayers) going?

The Globe also repeats the cliche that spending on education should be seen as an “investment.” The loose definition of an investment is “money spent in hopes of a profitable return.” To cut out the middlemen (the banks that administer the loans, assume the risk, and handle all the paperwork) would be to cut out the “investors.” It is they who are garnering the profits — the tangible ones, that is. The intangible profits, such as the positive externality stemming from a better-educated populace, are captured by the government. If education is supposed to be an investment, why shouldn’t we allow private entities to profit from investing?

The Globe concludes with a truly insipid declaration: “Educational investments should go straight to students.”

That would do no good whatsoever. The “investments” need to go to the people and institutions that provide the services in question — the colleges, trade schools, and so on. The students here are the consumers.

Whether or not the system is “broken” is certainly debatable, but what is certain is that the most fundamental questions are not being asked in this debate — and simply throwing more money at the problem is only going to allow the important questions raised above to fester even longer.

Obama’s first “Car Czar” didn’t work out. Mr. Steven Rattner has resigned, and his replacement has already been named. Ron Bloom is the new boss and, unlike his predecessor, he has quite a bit of experience under his belt — he’s a lifetime union lawyer.

Hmm… unions (in theory, at least) represent workers. Obama’s point man in the car industry (in which the government practically owns two of the Big Three) is someone who has spent his life working on behalf of unions. Why does the phrase “workers’ control over the means of production” come to mind?

This could all be just paranoia, of course. Ron Bloom’s long experience with unions might just mean he is best qualified to wring concessions out of them. He could be the ideal “honest broker” to assist management in getting these companies back on track. Recruiting him could turn out to be a revolutionary move by the Obama administration. After all, Joe Kennedy did a superb job at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Only Nixon could go to China. Sometimes it takes a thief to catch a thief.

The police are often portrayed as the defenders of society, placing themselves between the innocent and the forces of chaos. Naturally, then, the first challenge of those who wish to break the law is to find a way to circumvent those whose duty is enforcing the law — for those who wish to cause harm to bypass the guardians of the society they wish to harm.

It doesn’t exactly help when we, the protected, put handcuffs on those protecting us. Which is precisely what is happening in two cases.

In England, they have some very specific laws governing “hate crimes.” Those who assail a religion, or assail others on behalf of a religion, in a way that the English solons have deemed particularly “hateful,” are to be prosecuted and sentenced for hateful behavior.

Unless, it seems, the religion being used to shield the hateful acts happens to be Islam. In that case, in accordance with the long-established legal doctrine best described as “if we leave the crazies who hate us alone, maybe they won’t hurt us,” British police are being instructed to not enforce hate-crime laws too rigorously — especially against radical (and borderline radical) Muslims.

Meanwhile, in the United States, the Obama administration is ending support for a program started by the Bush Justice Department that authorized local police departments (after special training and whatnot) to enforce federal immigration laws against illegal aliens. The prevailing reasoning here seems to be something like “those laws are solely the responsibility of the federal government to enforce, and if we choose to not do so, tough.”

The duty of the police is to enforce the laws. If certain laws are deemed to be “unenforceable” or “inappropriate” or “inconvenient,” then the solution is to repeal the laws, not to tell the police to ignore them. That leads to a general disrespect for all laws, and is ultimately more harmful to society as a whole than most crime waves.

Further, it is simply not the place of the police to decide — or even cooperate with attempts to decide — how to enforce  laws selectively.

(Thanks to Rob Port of Say Anything Blog for pointing out both these stories.)

A new standard is being established in politics: if you challenge — or worse, humiliate — your liberal betters, you will be exposed, scrutinized, and — if necessary — destroyed.

We saw it with “Joe the Plumber.” This guy was minding his own business, playing with his son in his front yard, when Barack Obama made an unscheduled campaign stop in his neighborhood. This was no setup, this was no plot — Obama came to Joe, who asked him an uncomfortable question, to which Obama gave an even more uncomfortable answer. That was that. Within days, we knew everything there was to know about Joe — how he wasn’t a licensed plumber, how he’d had some tax problems, and — most shocking of all — “Joe” wasn’t his first name, but his middle name.

All for asking a question.

The tactic worked pretty well, and now it’s being applied to a Connecticut firefighter who had the gall to file a lawsuit that, at one point, crossed the bench of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.  The People for the American Way — a leftist advocacy group — is urging journalists to “look into” Frank Ricci, the lead complainant of the New Haven firefighters who sued the city after passing a test for promotion and nevertheless being denied the promotion because the city discarded the results due to racial-quota considerations. (Of the twenty who passed, nineteen were Caucasian and one was Latino.)

The People for the American Way certainly seems well-named. It has apparently become the “American Way” to engage in character assasination against individuals who succeed in standing up to their liberal betters — to expose and scrutinize every aspect of the lives, employing even the media to bring them down.

Sorry, Mr. Wurzelbacher and Mr. Ricci. You thought you could ask questions or stand up for your rights? You should have known better.

Over the last few years, quite a few members of Iran’s elite Quds forces have been captured in Iraq. They may have not been actively involved in killing Americans, but it’s been unquestionably established that, at the least, they have supported Iraqi insurgents and terrorists. They have provided training, materials, advice, intelligence, and miscellaneous forms of assistance to terrorist activities.

The Iranians are not overly eager to repatriate these troops. The incident would lead to awkward questions and even more awkward answers — covertly sending those forces to destabilize Iraq could be considered an act of war. Even if Iran disowned these troops and insisted they were acting independently of the Iranian government, and if the U.S., due to diplomatic considerations, decided not to challenge such a claim, the captured Quds forces could at least be treated as ordinary terrorists or criminals.

But the Obama administration has already figured out how to deal with them — hand them over to Iraq as a prelude to quietly sending them home.

In most cases, such action would be accompanied by some sort of reciprocal concession from Iran. In exchange for its troops, Iran could pull back all of its stealth forces in Iraq, release some politcal prisoners, or in some other way offer a quo in return for our quid.

But that’s not the “new” diplomacy. That’s not “smart power.”

Apparently, we are returning the Iranians we caught — “fair and square” — as a goodwill gesture. Perhaps Iran will now, in exchange, stop blaming us for the orchestration of massive protests by its own citizens, rebelling against the result of rigged elections. Perhaps now Iran will halt its nuclear program. Perhaps the mullahs will see the error of their ways and stop supporting terrorist cells across the Middle East, such as Hamas in the Palestinian territories, or Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Perhaps,.. perhaps,.. perhaps. Is Obama holding his breath?

Clark Hoyt, the public editor of the New York Times, has chimed in on the paper’s silence regarding the kidnapping of David Rohde, one of its correspondents, for over half a year by the Taliban.

During that time, the Gray Lady did all it could to prevent this news from leaking to the public. It muzzled its own staff, reached out and begged for discretion to other media outlets, bloggers, government officials, and anyone else who found out about the kidnapping. It even persuaded the people running Wikipedia to keep the secret, hoping to help preserve the journalist’s safety and win his release. It even censored its own records, removing references to Rohde’s previous career at the Christian Science Monitor, fearing the “Christian” label would endanger him.

It was a tremendous effort, and it was successful. No one noticed David Rohde had disappeared until he reappeared, safe and sound, having finally escaped. Others have condemned the Times for its efforts to suppress the news regarding his situation. I won’t do that. Their efforts were aimed at preserving his life, and that is an entirely laudable goal. For that I will applaud them.

I will, however, point out that the same principle was not applied by the Times regarding other sensitive information related to terrorists. For example, the Gray Lady had published a story on one of the government’s most successful terrorist interrogators. The interrogator, through applied psychology, extracted from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a great deal of highly valuable intelligence, thus winning the enmity of some very dangerous people. The Times had no problem giving out the gentleman’s name and home town.

Likewise, several years ago, the Times got wind of the CIA transporting terrorists around the world in private planes. The Times not only broke the story, but published pictures of the planes — complete with identifying registration numbers. And let us all not forget how the U.S. government managed to track terrorists through their financial transactions until the Times discovered the method and plastered its details all over its front pages.

Congratulations on your safe return home, Mr. Rohde. And congratulations to your employer, the New York Times, on its efforts at keeping your captivity secret out of concern for your safety.

Now, if only the Times could extend such concern and discretion to those who are not in its employ…

When Sarah Palin announced her resignation, one of the factors she cited was the relentless scrutiny that fell on her and her family. It can be argued that, as an elected official, she has to live with it—but does that have to extend to her family?

Consider this. Over the past year, she’s had to tolerate incredibly harsh treatment not only of herself, but of three of her five children.

Her oldest daughter had her pregnancy and her relationship with the father plastered all over TV, newspapers, and the internet, even to the point of him and his mother appearing on tabloid TV shows. This newly single mother has become a punchline of a thousand jokes.

Her second daughter recently also became the butt of national jokes when she committed the unforgivable sin of accompanying her mother on a trip to New York City, including a trip to a baseball game.

And her infant son, who has Down Syndrome, is already the subject of the most appalling rumors and innuendo—Andrew Sullivan’s fixation with digging up the baby’s birth certificate and every detail of Palin’s obstetric history has become almost a joke. A disgusting joke.

In the back of her mind, Palin must be looking at that, and wondering when the attacks will fall on her oldest son, currently serving in Iraq.

The treatment of the Palin family is reminiscent of another “innocent bystander” whose life also fell under a microscope for the offense of being in the wrong place in the wrong time.

“Joe the Plumber” was outside his own home, playing with his son, when then-candidate Barack Obama made an unscheduled campaign stop. Joe asked an awkward question of the candidate, which was caught on camera.

That, too, was an unforgivable act. Within days, every detail of Joe’s life was plastered across the media. Soon, we all knew that “Joe” was not a licensed plumber, that he had a history of tax liens (almost enough to qualify for a position in the Obama cabinet), and—most astonishing—his name wasn’t even “Joe,” but “Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher.”

Oddly enough, another person managed to dodge the bullet, for the most part, was Debby Smith.

Smith attended President Obama’s recent “town hall forum” on health care, where she was singled out as “exhibit A” for his reforms. It turns out there is a lot more behind this unemployed cancer sufferer without insurance, as Michelle Malkin and Dan Riehl discovered.

Did any of the mainstream media note that, instead of looking for a paying job that includes benefits, Smith has been an unemployed volunteer for a health care reform advocacy group? Of course not. Did the media discuss some of the other participants in the forum—the representative from the Service Employees International Union, which boasts of having spent $61 milllion electing president Obama, or the lobbyist from the group advocating for national health care coverage? Of course not.

But we do know that Bristol Palin’s former fiance claims to have spent several nights in the governor’s home with her daughter, and that Joe The Plumber had a tax lien on his house.

Nice to know our media have their  priorities straight.

Upon the news that Honduras had ousted its chief executive, President Obama — as is his wont — dithered and dawdled, then decided he would stand with the UN, Hugo Chavez, and the mullahs of Iran and back President Zelaya’s return.

I’m no expert on Honduran law and custom, but it could be useful to think of what happened in Honduras in the context of the American Constitution. Like the United States, Honduras has three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. And all three were involved in recent events.

In the United States, the Constitution achieves a balance of powers. No one branch has absolute power — each can check the actions of another, and any two can override the third. Congress and the Supreme Court can remove the president, the president and Congress can remove and replace Justices, and the president can refuse to enforce laws until the court strikes them down.

In Honduras, the president was taking action toward amending the country’s Constitution in a way that many believed was illegal. Among those who considered it such were the nation’s Supreme Court and legislature, who acted to prevent the constitutional changes. And even the nation’s attorney general and military leaders — nominally elements of the Chief Executive branch — also sided against their titular leader.

President Obama, by backing President Zelaya, is siding with a leader who has lost the faith of most of his own government and a great deal of the people by attempting to illegally rewrite the nation’s Constitution to suit his own ends. I don’t think this is the kind of “Change” in American foreign policy many Americans were Hoping for.

This morning, a story out of England showing the weaknesses of their health system is drawing attention: a three-year-old girl, born with a critical heart defect, desperately needs corrective surgery. She underwent open heart surgery when she was nine days old, but her heart is in trouble again — she’s already had one stroke, and is in failing health. Therefore doctors scheduled her for another operation.

Then canceled it because of a lack of bed space. Then they rescheduled it, and canceled it a second time for the same reason. And a third time. Her parents are hoping that the fourth time will be the charm.

The story is reminiscent of a recent development out of Canada. An infant was born prematurely in Hamilton, Ontario (population: 500,000) and needed to be treated in a neonatal intensive-care-unit. Unfortunately, such bed space (or incubator space, more accurately) was lacking in Hamilton. The call went out: was there anywhere in the province (population: 13 million — the largest in Canada) where the infant could be cared for? Did any hospital in the land of guaranteed free health-care have enough space for a tiny baby?

Nope. Instead, the only hospital that could save the infant was in Buffalo, New York (population: 300,000). This example shows what England lacks for making its health-care system work: a bigger neighboring nation without socialized medicine to pick up the slack. So, if the United States adopted the Canadian model, who’s going to be to us what we are now to Canada? Who’s going to be our emergency go-to nation for health care?

Well, Vice President Joe Biden—recently put “in charge” of Iraq policy—has just completed his first survey of his new domain. And he was warmly welcomed.

It’s almost as if those who received the Vice President were unaware of his previous stances on events in that nation.

Biden, while in the Senate, voted against the first Gulf War, back in 1991. He balanced that out by voting for the second one, in 2002. And at one point, managed to unite nearly all Iraqis—in opposing his plan to partition the nation into three states. He also publicly and vocally opposed the “surge” strategy of last year.

Perhaps Obama chose to put Biden in charge under the theory that he simply can’t be wrong any more—he’s used up all the possible errors. Or he thinks that things are going so well, even Biden can’t mess them up. Or he knows that things are about to go south, and wants someone he can shift the blame to.

Last week, John Conyers (D-MI), the powerful 23-term Congressman from Michigan, announced he would not be leading a probe into the organization formerly known as ACORN (Association Of Community Organizations for Reform Now) for their sundry thoroughly-documented illegalities and improprieties. Mr. Conyers explained that “the powers that be decided against it.”

As noted, Mr. Conyers is a remarkably powerful individual. His statement implies that the decision to lay off of ACORN — or COI (Community Organizations International), as they want to be called these days — wasn’t his.

So, whose was it? Who are these “powers that be?”

Only two plausible alternatives spring to mind: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the Obama administration. As Speaker, Pelosi has the authority to strip Conyers of his position as chairman, which he holds at her sole discretion. But in practice, it would be uncomfortable for her to take such a drastic measure because Pelosi’s own post depends on the good will of her fellow Democrats in the House. If she takes on despotic tendencies, they can turn on her and get her replaced as Speaker.

And then there’s the Obama administration, whose head has worked closely both with and for ACORN throughout his career and even owes a bit to ACORN for their efforts in helping him win the presidential election. Obama’s Justice Department would have been tasked with assisting Conyers in his probe of ACORN’s illegal practices. But the Justice Department just wrung a guilty plea from Conyers’ wife, Monica Conyers, on federal corruption charges, and will also make a sentencing recommendation in her case, which could net her up to five years in prison.

Of course, this is all just speculation. Representative Conyers could clear up all suspicions by elaborating on his remarks and explaining why ACORN should not be exempted from scrutiny. But he seems to have learned a lesson from Speaker Pelosi when she accused the CIA of routinely lying to Congress: when you’re in a hole, stop digging.

For once, the Obama administration is taking the right tack regarding to North Korea.

Recently, the belligerent communist dictatorship announced plans for testing its latest long-range nuclear-capable missile through a launch in Hawaii’s direction this Saturday — a lovely little 4th of July tribute. Apparently, our deployment of anti-missile systems to our 50th state is tantamount to an act of war.

This is the same North Korea that keeps testing nuclear weapons and shouts its belligerence and defiance to the world ad nauseam.

So, how did the Obama administration choose to answer the latest escalating confrontation? By “testing” one of our own ICBMs. That’s right. On virtually zero notice, we dusted off one of our Minuteman III missiles (a weapon celebrating its 40th birthday this year) and shot it off in the general direction of North Korea.

This response should drive home more effectively than any diplomatic wording could, the message that whatever military ambitions North Korea may be fevering with, we have realized them and surpassed them decades ago. Our warheads, unlike theirs, actually work. So Kim, are you sure you want in on this game?

This is perhaps the only language North Korea can understand. The question remains whether it will smarten up in the wake of this display of force, or attempt to call Obama’s bluff.

The current “cap and trade” bill wending its way through Congress represents the triumph of “hope” — as in “Hope And Change” — over everything else, including reality. Its proponents tout it as a major step toward American energy independence, as well as toward the use of cleaner energy. In reality, it’s a leap toward chaos.

One of the fundamental building blocks of post-Industrial Age civilization is access to energy. As we find new forms, new sources, we rarely discard the old ones — they dwindle in popularity, but rarely vanish. Wood led to coal led to oil led to hydroelectric led to nuclear fission, just to name a few, but all are still in use to various degrees. And those sources will, in time, diminish in popularity as new ones come into use. It’s the natural progression.

But not under Cap and Trade.

Cap and Trade’s stated goal is to force Americans to jump to the next cycle of energy production, where these old, dirty, inefficient technologies are shoved aside and replaced with newer, cleaner, sources. It’s a fine, noble, sentiment, with one fatal flaw: it’s built on fantasy.

At present, there is no “new” source of energy that Cap and Trade is pushing us toward. Instead, it’s just pushing us off our base and dashing our hopes of ever finding a new one.

Imagine you’re building a bridge. The person in charge wants it done by a certain date, and insists that you will lead a parade over that bridge on that date, come hell or high water. In the meantime, he’s given you the budget to build half the bridge. But not to worry; he’s certain that before you reach that halfway point, the price of supplies will have fallen or the interest rates at the bank holding your funds will have risen or some miracle in bridge supplies technology will have come about and you’ll find that your money will be enough to finish the bridge. But on that date, you’re marching.

Were I that bridge builder, I’d quit or buy a parachute. .

So, what is the real purpose of the whole Cap and Trade bill? The key might be in the enforcement provisions. And the means are economic — fines, permits, taxes, fees, assessments, and the like — all of which translate into more and more money being siphoned out of the private sector and into the hands of the government. All in the name of “energy independence” and “a cleaner environment.”

Carried out as planned, the bill will actually achieve its aims. We will be independent of energy, and the environment will be considerably cleaner as we return to a pre-industrial state.

Put THAT in your iPhone and text it, America.

Is there a bigger oxymoron in American politics today than “the Democratic party?” Judging by some of last week’s events, probably not.

First, in the rush to get the president’s “Cap And Trade” bill through the House, Representative Henry Waxman raised an objection to a completely unreasonable and specious demand from House Republicans — that they be permitted to read through a 300-page amendment he had tacked on to the 1,000-page under consideration.

Next, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — apparently eager to show that anything House Democrats can do, he can do too — stated that he would not commit to giving Senators enough time to study — let alone read — the health care financing reform bill put together by House Democrats (with Republicans excluded entirely from the crafting).

Finally, the White House  quietly acknowledged that another Obama campaign promise had reached its unpublished expiration date — his pledge to post any and all bills passed by Congress on the White House’s web site for five days before he’d sign them. That one had been tossed aside practically from the outset, but now it’s official.

The message is clear, from both Houses of Congress and the White House: “we’re the federal government, and you can trust us. ”

Not that we have a choice…

Tonight, ABC is giving President Obama two full hours to sell the American people on his health plan. Naturally, in the interests of fairness and balance and presenting a complete picture, ABC will also allow those who disagree with the president to present their opinions.

Whoops, my mistake. ABC won’t be interviewing or featuring any opponents. Nor will it be accepting paid commercials to present the alternative.

ABC says it will be featuring a wide assortment of ordinary Americans who will be allowed to ask the president and his people unscripted, unsolicited questions on the subject. We all know how well that works out. During the presidential primary season, CNN teamed up with YouTube to host a pair of debates — one for each party. And when it came time for the Republican debate — surprise, surprise! — they stacked the deck.

Among the 34 supposed “undecided Republican voters” chosen to ask questions, 8 were found to have serious ties to Democrats. Declared supporters, former Democratic interns, and — in one famous case — a retired gay Air Force general who worked for both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. General Kerr got extra-special attention, as befitted his long-standing relationship with CNN — he, alone, was flown in to the debate to critique the answers given by the candidates.

CNN got away with it. And tonight, so might ABC News.

Why, Ford?

Of the Big Three (well, Big 2.5) automakers, only Ford refused government bailout money. Only Ford has evaded bankruptcy and only Ford has not had to restructure its entire dealer network — provisions pushed by the federal government, which used its “investments” in the automakers to reshape them according to its political whims.

Well, Ford can no longer resist the bait, and has accepted almost $6 billion in a federal “loan” to develop more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Apparently, Ford thinks it is exempt from the governing rule about accepting federal money: once you go into business with them, you end up the very junior partner in the deal. You will find yourself pushed to cater to the demands of several hundred new CEOs in the White House, in Congress, and in countless other bureaucratic sinecures.

That’s what is happening to banks that accepted TARP money. That’s what is happening to the auto industry. That is what is very likely to happen to the health care and health insurance industries.

Ford’s acceptance of this money is an expression of Hope and Change over reality. Ford is apparently Hoping that the Obama administration will, for some reason, Change how it treats its debtors. That the government, for once, will not use the leverage of its “investments” to exert influence over the entire corporation.

I Hope they’re right.

Quite often, when a person or group is accused of something improper or illegal, they’ll pretend to admit some guilt, while insisting on their innocence. For example, a corporation accused of dumping pollutants will pay a hefty settlement, but insist that the money is not an admission of their crime. It’s often accepted with a wink and a nod — “Sure, you’re innocent, you’re just doing this out of the goodness of your hearts and to make the whole mess go away.”

Well, there have been two such examples involving those closest and dearest to President Obama’s heart — and, as usual, it’s quite entertaining.

First up, Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor had been a member of the for-women-only elite group the Belizean Grove. Judge Sotomayor, a sitting federal judge, joined last year. Unfortunately, the American Bar Association’s judicial code states that it is inappropriate for a judge to belong to any group that discriminates on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin — and “No Boys Allowed” doesn’t exactly conform.

Sotomayor resigned from the club, but insisted that there was nothing inappropriate about the membership. No men had ever been admitted, but Sotomayor said that was because none had ever asked.

Meanwhile, ACORN — the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now! — has announced that it has changed its name to “Community Organizations International.” The leaders of the Group Formerly Known as ACORN say that they had to jettison the name because it had drawn so much fire over the years. Apparently most of the criticism of ACORN has been provoked by the name itself. The conduct of the group, its leadership, and its members — which will likely continue unchanged under the new letterhead and banner — were not much of a factor at all.

From a branding perspective, it’s a bit of a shame. ACORN’s name was a call to action that lent itself to an easy-to-remember name and a snazzy logo. True, it also let people refer to them as “nuts,” but that’s a small price to pay for such an identifiable name.

Unless, of course, the conduct of those responsible for guarding ACORN’s reputation turn out to be completely inept, corrupt, or both. Incidents such as concealing a near-seven-figure embezzlement by the founder’s brother, keeping it away from public scrutiny and law enforcement until it can be quietly repaid. Incidents such as investigations of voter registration fraud in 14 states — with numerous convictions. Incidents as illegally seizing and occupying foreclosed homes.

So, how good is the new name? According to the Free Dictionary list of acronyms, the first meaning of “COI” is “Conflict Of Interest” — hardly a term this group would want to play around with.

Of course, it must be stated (and re-stated and re-stated) that in both cases, the changes are in no way an admission of wrongdoing. Nope. Not at all. Just done out of the same sense of the new apology — “I’m sorry that my remarks were misconstrued, and I apologize to anyone who might have been offended.”

Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) has often been called “the smartest guy in Congress.” That he is very intelligent is clear — but his actions show that simple brainpower is rarely an indicator of wisdom.

Congressman Frank, it should be recalled, was one of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s staunchest defenders, shielding them from scrutiny and oversight right up until they collapsed. And at that point he had the audacity to blame their failure not on those who had enabled the misconduct, but on those who had tried — and failed, thanks to Frank and his allies — to rein those bodies in.

Well, Frank is back to his old games. He’s leaning on Fannie and Freddie to ease restrictions on new condominium mortgages. The two had recently announced changes to their rules on when they would guarantee mortgages on condominium complexes showing signs of financial trouble. Frank wants them to assume greater risk and shift the exposure from developers and buyers onto the federal government.

Stop me if you’ve heard that line of argument before.

And recently, as part of its bankruptcy reorganization, GM announced that it was closing facilities around the nation. This was somewhat buried amid a flurry of larger developments, such as the demise of entire brand lines and the shuttering of dealerships, but still held some significance to a lot of people — including 80 people in a to-be-closed GM parts distribution center in Norton, Massachusetts. More specifically, 80 constituents of Congressman Barney Frank.

Frank immediately leaned on GM (at that point firmly in the hands of the federal government) to spare the Norton plant and its 80 jobs (which, apparently, hasn’t hired anyone new since the mid-1980’s). The GM execs, with this new calculus  (”one of our new CEOs likes this plant”), reconsidered and realized that it does make sense to keep this warehouse open for at least another year.

As noted, you’d be hard-pressed to find a more intelligent member of Congress. It takes a tremendous intellect to be so colossally, consistently wrong — and cause such harm.

Our recent relations with China on the high seas have not been pleasant. Two unarmed United States navy ships have been harassed by Chinese boats and ships, leading to protests and the assignment of armed warships to escort the surveillance vessels. And recently a guided missile destroyer had its towed sonar array become entangled with a Chinese submarine.

Meanwhile, North Korea’s nuclear ambitions have led us to ratchet up the pressure on that country, up to and including having one of our warships shadow and prepare to board and search a North Korean freighter suspected of carrying prohibited weapons and weapons technology.

The one ship that has featured prominently in these showdowns? The USS John S. McCain.

It was the McCain that tangled — literally — with a Chinese sub. And it is the McCain that is ready to stop and investigate the North Korean warship.

No, the ship is not named for the Senator, most recent Republican presidential nominee, and the man who lost to President Obama last November. She is named for the Senator’s grandfather and father, John S. McCain Senior and Junior, both of whom rose to the rank of Admiral and served with great distinction through several wars.

Is the destroyer’s prominence in events a gesture of respect from President Obama to his defeated rival? Is it a back-handed slap? Or is it just a rather odd coincidence?

My money’s on the last. But it is certainly an unusual one. The United States has over 50 destroyers of the McCain’s class, assigned all around the world. For this one ship to be so prominent in two separate areas of tension is remarkable.

In the story about President Obama’s firing of Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General overseeing potential misuses of Americorps funds, there is a sidelight that isn’t drawing much attention. And that’s the issue brought up by the subject of Walpin’s last investigation, the one into Kevin Johnson.

Johnson, a former NBA superstar, headed up St. HOPE Academy, an educational nonprofit that received nearly a million dollars in federal grants. Walpin’s investigation showed that Johnson had diverted a great deal of that money for his personal use. In an agreement with the federal government, St. HOPE repaid over $400,000 in funds.

That agreement wasn’t enough for Walpin, who sought a ban on St. HOPE — and its principals who had abused the Americorps funding — from receiving future federal grants. That would have proven quite troublesome in the case of Johnson, who was in the middle of an ultimately successful campaign for mayor of Sacramento. Had Walpin succeeded, it would have prevented Sacramento from getting any federal funding whatsoever.

This hardship was cited as a reason for not imposing what is often a standard penalty for those who admit to misusing federal grants.

The argument here is not a new one, and it is flawed. A person’s winning an election, does not confer upon them some kind of forgiveness for past offenses.

Kevin Johnson grossly misused federal funds. The standard penalty is a common sense one — he shouldn’t be entrusted with federal funds for at least some time. That he is now mayor of the capital of California doesn’t change that.

Winning an election does not have some sort of sanctifying effect. A man who misuses funds and is then elected mayor is now a mayor who has misused funds. And those who voted him into office should expect to have to live with the consequences of their decision.

If anyone was wondering if the Pentagon would quickly adapt to the new administration and its bent, wonder no longer. In a written exam for employee training, test takers are asked to categorize an example of “low-level terrorism” — and the correct answer is “protests.” This fits seamlessly with Obama’s evident distaste for dissent here and elsewhere. (Shareholders who didn’t care for Obama’s plan for restructuring Chrysler are apparently low-level terrorists now.)  It is also another strange entry in Obama’s  post-Bush national security lexicon.

The Global War On Terror is now an “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

And acts of terrorism are now “man-caused disasters.”

For Obama, to call those we used to call terrorists by that term is unhelpful, unproductive, and too reminiscent of the Bush administration. But calling protesters terrorists seems to have a certain utility.

It’s still very early in the Obama administration, but a pattern is beginning to emerge in how the president deals with foreign nations. And it isn’t a very pretty one.

Thus far, it seems that the guiding principle of this administration is summed up in a single, concise phrase: “Treat your enemies like friends, and your friends like enemies.” It’s doubtful the plan was envisioned as such, but that is the impression they’re giving so far.

Others here have already discussed at length how the Obama administration is dealing with Israel, so no recap is necessary — but  the statements made thus far on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict do fit quite nicely into the theme.

Regarding North Korea and China, Obama seems almost eager to offer a hand in friendship to those who have wasted no time in offering insults, offenses, and threats against the U.S.

On the other hand, Obama seems almost eager to alienate Great Britain. And at one point, Obama’s rush to boost the American economy led him to push for some very protectionist, almost jingoistic measures — which royally irritated Canada, who pointedly reminded him that such measures violate long-standing trade agreements with our neighbor to the north.

There is a plausible — if simplistic — explanation for this. Our relations with hostile nations need a great deal of attention and effort in order to improve. On the other hand, our friends already like us; they don’t need much hand-holding and reassuring.

This gives the impression that we take our friends for granted and don’t care about slighting them in favor of those who have been — to put it mildly — far less obliging and amicable.

Do we really want to lose some of the affection and respect we enjoy from some nations in exchange for the dim prospect of others not hating us quite so much? That’s a very, very poor trade-off.

During the campaign, President Obama made his foreign policy goals clear. Among them was to put our relationships with traditional allies on new footings.

It now appears that he is doing just that — but in ways no one envisioned.

The “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom has existed for well over a hundred years. We have been allies to various degrees in wars, diplomatic colleagues, trading partners, technological and military collaborators, and in general pretty much “the bestest of buds.”

But Obama seems to have his heart set on “restoring” the relationship we enjoyed with the British up through the American Civil War, when they were supportive of the Confederacy.

First up, Obama packed up and shipped back a bronze bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office for nearly a decade.

Then, during a state visit from Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama set aside the tradition of meaningful, thoughtful, symbolic gifts and gave Brown a set of great American movies on DVD — in a format incompatible with British DVD players. Along with those coasters, Obama tossed in some stuff for Brown’s kids — a couple of models from the White House gift shop.

Then later, when Obama visited England, he presented Queen Elizabeth with her very own iPod. Fortunately, it was preloaded with show tunes, making it an appropriate accompaniment for the more substantial gift, a coffee table book of songs by Rodgers and Hart and autographed by Rodgers.

Earlier this month, during the observation of the anniversary of D-Day, all the Allied nations gathered to pay their respects to that momentous effort. Oddly enough, the one current head of state who actually served in uniform during World War II — the selfsame Elizabeth II, who was a truck driver and mechanic in the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service, entering as the equivalent of a 2nd Lieutenant and ending her career as the equivalent of a Captain — was left off the guest list. Obama and the French each blamed one another, with Obama insisting on her being invited. In the end, she stayed home and sent Prince Charles.

Then this past week, the Obama administration finally figured out what to do with the Chinese Uighurs held at Guantanamo Bay: pay Bermuda to take a bunch of them off our hands.

Of course, it might have been nice if someone had remembered — or cared — that Bermuda is a British colony, and its foreign relations are handled out of London. London is not amused. Playing ball with Obama might cost the Bermudan governor his job.

The United States was born out of bloody rebellion from England, and we had to reassert our independence at the dawn of the 19th century, in a conflict that saw England seize and burn the White House. It took about a century after the American Revolution for relations between us and England to grow cordial, and well over another century for the relationship to become one of the greatest friendships in history.

And it seems that Obama is set on restoring our prior relations with England.

Well, that is pretty much what he promised us…

Recently, the Jerusalem Post has published two articles about the Gaza Strip that paint remarkably compelling and enlightening pictures of the region.

The first was a reminiscence from Eliezer Whartman, who entered the strip after Israel captured it from Egypt in the Six Day War. He saw, first hand, what it had been like for the Arabs living there for almost two decades under Egyptian rule. After almost four decades the Israelis turned power over to the Palestinian Authority in 1994 and withdrew fully in 2005, a process that culminated in Hamas winning elections and taking power in 2007.

With the strip firmly in the hands of a terrorist organization whose declared purpose is the destruction of Israel and in the wake of an endless barrage of terrorist attacks and bombardment by rockets and mortars, Israel has had to flex its muscles and keep the assaults down to a dull roar. Naturally, this is denounced by much of the world as a form of “genocide” and even “a Holocaust.” Oddly enough, many of those making those comparisons also deny the original Holocaust — “the Jews are acting just like Nazis, who really weren’t so bad!”

Every now and then, stories like this second one from the Jerusalem Post sneak out and they should cause the world to do a rethink. While Israel complains about Palestinians digging tunnels under their borders to smuggle weapons (from Egypt into Gaza as well as from Gaza into Israel proper), it’s cooperating with Palestinians to dig a tunnel that will supply fuel and cooking oil from Israel into the Gaza Strip. And while Israel is stringing up wire to keep out Palestinians, it is also stringing up wire to carry electricity to them.

Naturally, this story ruins the popular narrative, so it won’t get the coverage it deserves.

There have been three acts of domestic terrorism this month alone. And all have a single, unifying element.

In  Kansas, Dr. George Tiller, a doctor who specialized in late-term abortions, was shot and killed in his church on June 1.

The very next day, in Arkansas, two young soldiers working with Army recruiters were shot. Private William Long was killed, while Private Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded.

And this week, a security guard at the National Holocaust Museum was shot. Stephen Tyrone Johns was fatally wounded by the attacker, who in turn was wounded by John’s fellow guards.

The shooters’ motives all differ. In Kansas, it was apparently done by a radical anti-abortion nutcase. In Arkansas, the accused shooter is proclaiming jihad. And in Washington, D.C. the suspect is an octogenarian with a decades-long background of violence and hatred — of Jews, blacks, “neo-cons,” liberals, those not sufficiently right-wing, and so on.

Two of the suspects were apparently already on the radar of law enforcement. The Arkansas shooter had recently returned from Yemen, where he is suspected of having sought training from Islamic terrorists. And the D.C. shooter had served six years for attempting to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve in 1981.

But the single unifying element of the three is that they all apparently acted alone.

The “lone nuts” are notoriously the hardest to catch. Most conspiracies are broken when one of the conspirators — for whatever reason — lets crucial information slip. It can be an accident, an attack of conscience, or simple self-interest, but it almost always takes an informant to break such cases.

In these three shootings, though, that was never a possibility. Each was a “conspiracy of one,” confiding his plans in no one.

This should come as no great surprise. Often the most successful acts of violence are carried out by a single individual, acting alone. The men who shot Presidents Reagan and Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Kennedy, and George Wallace, were acting alone. The Unabomber had no assistant. The Oklahoma City bombing and the D.C. Sniper attacks were carried out by two people each.

There’s a reason government targets groups prone to acts of violence. Intervention among those groups may prevent predictable outbursts of crime.

The Unabomber was caught after a tip from his family. The D.C. Snipers were caught due to the actions of concerned private citizens. And the Oklahoma City bombers were caught by a small-town cop during a traffic stop.

The unlimited access afforded by interconnectivity means that the power of a single individual to affect the course of history has never been greater than it is today. And in these past few weeks, we have been starkly reminded of the fact that the effect can be at least as negative as it can be positive .