Social Media May Be 'Free' But It Sure Costs a Lot To Manage | ZDNet

For social media, like everything else in life, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

"Social media marketing is referenced often as an especially cost-effective tool for small businesses.

Even so, 36 percent of small and midsize businesses (SMBs) spend an average of $845 per month on tools or cloud services for managing their social media accounts, according to a new survey sponsored by Vocus.

Another 32 percent of those surveyed on behalf of Vocus said they spend $1,000 or more on social media management, while 22 percent are outsourcing these functions to someone else (the amount of that investment wasn't given in the materials I reviewed for this post).

The average number of tools used by the SMBs to deal with social media accounts is three, while social media activities represent about 25 percent of the respondents' overall marketing mix, the data show."

Social media may be 'free' but it sure costs a lot to manage | ZDNet

Nine Algorithms That Changed the Future: Book review | ZDNet

I think I have to add this to the list of books I need to read when I get some spare time.

"The subject areas covered by the algorithms are: search engine indexing; public key cryptography; error-correcting codes; pattern recognition; compression; databases; and digital signatures.

You may not recognise these as things you use every day, but indeed they are. Without error-correcting codes there would be no internet communications; without compression no DVDs; without public key cryptography no secure spontaneous online transactions between strangers; without databases no e-commerce or government benefits systems; without pattern recognition no spam filtering."

Nine Algorithms That Changed the Future: Book review | ZDNet

Facebook Integrates With Dropbox To Power File-Sharing Within Facebook Groups | TechCrunch

I have used Dropbox now for quite some time and I have found it invaluable. I have a Facebook account as well, mostly because it seems like I almost have to have one. I suspect I would seldom, if ever, share files through Facebook but I found this to be a very interesting development.

"Facebook announced today a new integration with personal file storage company Dropbox. Now, people can share files to Facebook Groups using Dropbox’s cloud-based storage system"

Facebook Integrates With Dropbox To Power File-Sharing Within Facebook Groups | TechCrunch

If you don't have a Dropbox account, you can create one here.

Hyundai CEO Tells Where He'll Take His Hot Brand Next

This article caught my attention because I have a very high opinion of Hyundai vehicles despite not owning one. In fact, I have never ever been in a Hyundai. But they are having great success in the US over the last several years.

"Much of the momentum Krafcik inherited was his own doing. Before he became CEO, Krafcik was vice president of product development and strategic planning. When he took that job in 2004, Hyundai's share of U.S. new vehicle sales was 2.5%, according to Autodata.

Now, it's 5% and Hyundai is the seventh-biggest car company in the U.S., ranked by sales, behind the Detroit Three and Japan's top trio, Toyota, Honda and Nissan."

I found the most interesting sections of the article to be Krafcik's predictions for the future of the automotive industry, especially his belief that the internal combustion engine is not going away.

"Hyundai will field some alternative-power models -- already it is selling a gasoline-electric hybrid version of the Sonata, and a hydrogen-fueled car is due in 2015, he says -- but the future belongs to the venerable gasoline engine. It 'will still be the majority (powerplant) in 30 years,' he says.

Refined, evolved, downsized, engineered to a fare-thee-well, for sure, but still the recognizable internal combustion engine traceable to the first practical car, built by Karl Benz in 1886.

Even Hyundai's hydrogen car won't be exclusively an alternative fuel model. 'It would be a platform where we could also put in internal-combustion' engines.

Nowadays the politically correct view is that non-petroleum power is the future. Nonetheless, others agree with Krafcik.

One school of thought says that bio-fuels made from waste -- cornstalks or wood chips, for instance, instead of feed corn as is done now -- eventually could be produced in such quantities that they could be sold at the pump cheaper than gasoline.

'Suddenly you have the same old engines but new environmentally acceptable fuels, and it's a whole new game,' says David Cole, chairman emeritus of the Center for Auto Research and longtime observer of the auto industry.

A report this month from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says lifetime costs associated with electric cars are 'generally higher than those of a conventional vehicle or traditional hybrid of similar size and performance.' On average, CBO says, costs run $16,000 to $19,000 more than a comparable gas-engine vehicle.

The CBO report says that an electric or plug-in hybrid would 'require a tax credit of more than $12,000 to have the same lifetime costs' as a similar gas-only vehicle. The government currently gives a federal tax credit up to $7,500 for electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles for qualifying buyers."

Hyundai CEO tells where he'll take his hot brand next

Romney Pulls Ahead | DickMorris.com

Dick Morris sure paints a polling picture a lot different than the major media outlets. I wonder why.

"The published polling in this year’s presidential race is unusually inaccurate because this is the first election in which who votes determines how they vote. Obama’s massive leads among blacks, Latinos, young people, and single women vie with Romney’s margin among the elderly, married white women, and white men. Tell me your demographic and I’ll tell you who you’re voting for and I’ll be right at least two times out of three!"

Well, in either case, someone is sure to be proved wrong in just a matter of weeks.

Romney Pulls Ahead at DickMorris.com

We're Not Going To Call You IPFW Anymore | Detroit Free Press

I first blogged about this topic that According to Summit League IPFW Is Fort Wayne in July after the story first broke so this is not news in that sense but I think this update from the Detroit Free Press is worth a read. Thanks to Gregg Henson for being the first to bring it to my attention.

It confirms my suspicion that a consultant was behind the change by the Summit League. This reminds me of how the old IHL tried to convince the Frankes to change the name Fort Wayne Komets to something more recognizable to casual fans in the big cities that dominated the IHL during the 1990s. They did convince the Kalamazoo Wings to change their name to the Michigan K-Wings. I fail to see how that helps branding or marketing. Anyway the Frankes rightly told the IHL where they could put that idea as far as the Fort Wayne Komets were concerned.

It also confirms why IUPUI is still IUPUI according to the Summit League. Referring to IUPUI as Indianapolis would set up confusion with Division II University of Indianapolis. I'm sure the consultant is working overtime trying to come up with a better idea so solve that. And Omaha's efforts to market themselves with its "O" insignia would seem to create some possible confusion with the "O" used by Oakland University.

I don't know whether this branding effort will succeed but anything that changes the impression that "Summit is considered a mid- to low-major conference" would help. And I think the article overstates the effort of IPFW "to distinguish itself from Indiana and Purdue universities." I guess as long as IPFW can continue to grow and offer degrees from Purdue and Indiana, I guess I don't care what the Summit League calls IPFW.

I agree with IPFW Athletic Director Tommy Bell who believes that nothing helps branding better than building a successful athletic program and winning.

Summit League: We're Not Going To Call You IPFW Anymore | Detroit Free Press

Dump Internet Explorer Until Microsoft Issues Patch, Security Experts Warn | PCWorld

I have just two words for this:

Chrome Browser

Dump Internet Explorer until Microsoft issues patch, security experts warn | PCWorld

Obama Twisting in the Wind Like Carter | RealClearPolitics

I think that I have seen this movie before with Iran and Jimmy Carter in the 1970s. It was not an enjoyable movie to watch and the ending still playing out today is not a good one.

"What a difference a day makes! Just 24 hours ago, the 'informed' commentariat was telling us President Obama's foreign policy was going to be a big plus for him in the election. In the wake of assaults on US diplomatic compounds in Cairo and Benghazi, and the State Department apology for our freedom of speech and basic values, Obama is starting to look a lot like Jimmy Carter twisting in the wind as Iranians held hostages in Tehran in 1979.

All of this turmoil is the direct result of Obama's backing of Muslim Brotherhood backed forces overthrowing Gaddafi in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt. Without American and NATO air power, Gaddafi would still be in power, a crazy to be sure, but a crazy who had given up his nuclear program, paid restitution to the victims of Pan Am 109, and who protected foreign diplomatic facilities."

Obama Twisting in the Wind Like Carter | RealClearPolitics

Obama Breaks with Israel on Response to Iran's Nuclear Program - NY Daily News

With friends like Obama why does Israel need enemies?

I subscribe to the Econ101 theory of international relations. It is just basic economics. Whatever you subsidize you get more of. Whatever you penalize you get less of.

So if you reward your enemies, you get more enemies. And if you punish your allies, you get less allies.

Israel is directly in the sights of a regime that has pledged publicly countless times to blow if off the face of the map. So what is Israel to do? Its leaders primary responsibility is the protection of its citizens. Having lost 6 million in the genocide of World War II, I have no doubt that Israel will do whatever it takes to survive as a nation.

"His (Obama's) refusal to commit left Israel on its own while Iran continues on the nuclear path without fear of American intervention as it develops the components for a bomb. This is far too terrifying for Israel, so, with Obama clearly not at his back, Netanyahu declared: 'The world tells Israel, Wait, there’s still time. And I say, Wait for what? Wait until when? Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.' "

In the meantime, Obama turns down a request to meet with Netanyahu but has time to invite Egypt's Muslim Brothehood president to talk and books an appearance on the David Letterman show after doing a radio interview with the Pimp with a Limp. And he always has unlimited time for countless campaign appearances and fundraising events.

By appearing to do all that he can do to avoid any possibility of a war with Iran, it is possble that Obama is making that war inevitable.

Obama breaks with Israel on response to Iran's nuclear program - NY Daily News

For a Better Retirement, Work Longer - Chuck Jaffe - MarketWatch

This column discusses an interesting idea designed to encourage workers to keep working longer toward their normal retirement date so that they don't draw Social Security benefits so early. Basically the idea is to vest a worker's Social Security benefit when he/she reaches age 55.

"Before you assume this would be a government subsidy or an employer-borne handout, the idea was simply to eliminate Social Security payroll taxes starting when workers are 55 years old. As a result, take-home pay would jump 10.6%, and the average worker would stay on the job 1.5 years longer. During that time, they would continue paying income taxes, their only break would be on the payroll tariff.

Moreover, the way the change would be paid for is by raising payroll taxes slightly for workers who are younger and nowhere near retirement."

How do you arrive at an estimate that the average worker will delay retirement 1.5 years? And how much more would younger workers be required to pay in Social Security taxes? As with all such proposals there are some questions. But this should at least be the subject of serious discussion in Congress.

I think the concept of vesting Social Security at age 55 is very intriguing although it won't do me very much good since I passed that milestone years ago. But anything that might put Social Security on a more sound footing deserves serious consideration.

For a better retirement, work longer - Chuck Jaffe - MarketWatch

9/11 Note Reaches Family 10 Years Later | Fox News

This is the heartbreaking report of how the family of a 9-11 victim had their hopes that he had not suffered in his final moments dashed by his note that survived the collapse of the buildings at the World Trade Center. May God bless all of them.

" '84th Floor west office 12 people trapped.'

The words were scrawled on a note by Connecticut resident Randy Scott on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when the World Trade Center was attacked. Scott perished that fateful day, but the note withstood the collapse of the towers and was passed from hand to hand for nearly ten years before it finally reached his family, according to the Stamford Advocate..

Scott’s wife, Denise, learned about what her family refers to as 'The Note' in August 2011. She had previously believed her husband died instantly after Flight 175 flew into the tower near the offices of Euro Brokers, where he worked. The scrap of paper has robbed the family of any illusion Randy Scott died a quick and merciful death."

Chilling 9/11 note reaches family 10 years later | Fox News

If this link fails to work again, please try this link to the story in the Stamford Advocate referenced by the Fox News story.

Father's note changes family's 9/11 account | Stamford Advocate

Overworked Employees May See Relief in New Hiring - MarketWatch

Many of those fortunate enough to still have jobs have found themselves working harder to pick up the slack for their co-workers whose jobs have been eliminated. Maybe that pendulum will start to swing the other way.

"Since the recession, companies avoided hiring new employees by pushing existing staff to work longer and harder. But experts say employers may have squeezed everything they can out of their workforce—and now have no choice but to start hiring."

But there are still several reasons for employers to hold off as economic uncertainty remains.

"To be sure, companies may remain hesitant to bring on new workers, given their continued uncertainty about the economy. Some employers are already reining in spending ahead of the U.S. presidential election and a 'fiscal cliff' of automatic spending cuts and tax-break expirations that will go into effect next year if Congress fails to act. The debt crisis in Europe could also hurt profits for U.S. companies, which get a chunk of their profits from business overseas, advisers say."

My belief is that there is tremendous pent-up hiring demand but employers continue to hold off in hiring more employees waiting and hoping for a change for the better in economic policies from Washington beginning in January.

Overworked employees may see relief in new hiring - MarketWatch

Why a Drop in the Unemployment Rate Is Tragic | Breakout - Yahoo! Finance

The numbers from the latest employment statistics are brutal. Why should we expect this to change if our leaders and policies aren't changed?

Why a Drop in the Unemployment Rate Is Tragic | Breakout - Yahoo! Finance

Review & Outlook: Of Bill and Barack - WSJ.com

The Wall Street Journal tries to set the historical record straight on how much different the Obama presidency is from the Clinton presidency. And it closes with this warning.

"So as Mr. Clinton tries to lay hands on Mr. Obama and rewrite the history of the 1990s, the real story isn't how much policy the two Democrats have in common. What matters is what they did differently. Bill Clinton learned from the mistakes of his first two years. Mr. Obama has doubled down on his—and, on all available evidence, he will double down again if he's re-elected."

If they are right that Obama will double-down again on his policies if re-elected, how does a rational person believe that things would ever get any better? Indeed why wouldn't they get progressively worse? (pun intended)

Review & Outlook: Of Bill and Barack - WSJ.com

George Will: Obama’s desire to transform the United States - The Washington Post

George Will says that it is up to the voters to decide if Obama gets four more years to complete his transformation of the United States away from those principles that our Founders considered to be fundamental to our form of government.

"In 2012, Americans want from government not such flights of fancy but sobriety; not ecstatic evocations of dreamlike tomorrows but a tolerably functioning today; not fantasies about a world without scarcities and therefore without choices among our desires and appetites but a mature understanding of the limits to government’s proper scope and actual competence. Tonight’s speech is Obama’s last chance to take a first step toward accommodation with a country increasingly concerned about his unmasked determination to “transform” what the Founders considered 'fundamentals.' "

George Will: Obama’s desire to transform the United States - The Washington Post

O'Reilly: "No Question The Country Is Worse Off Today" | RealClearPolitics

I think Bill O'Reilly hits one thing right on the head that demonstrates why I have difficulty understanding much of the liberal mindset even though I was once one myself.

Liberals want social justice but for them fiscal responsibility is not a factor at all.

But how can anyone operate on that basis as if the budget has no say in our priorities? As Margaret Thatcher has stated and as is evident from Europe today "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

Even the concept of social justice is fuzzy. What is it? Is it another way of saying "fairness" as if that can be defined. Fairness is subjective. It is in the eye of the beholder. Since we all don't define fairness alike how can government enforce someone's idea of fairness without stripping us of our individual freedoms? The only way government can enforce its idea of fairness is by forcing us to follow its definition and that is not in keeping with our form of government. That is a dictatorship.

Here is Bill O'Reilly's take on the issue.

"Now, there’s no use in debating President Obama’s opinion. He believes it, and so do his followers. All the charts in the world are not going to change their minds. So it is up to you, the voter, to decide whether Mitt Romney and the Republicans should get a chance to improve things, and therein lies the question mark. Talking Points has said from the beginning of this campaign that the vote will be a referendum on Barack Obama. It will be an up or down vote on him. 

The Republican Party knows that, and therefore Governor Romney is going to play it very safe. He’s not going to be drawn into any policy controversy. He’s not going to make any bold and fresh statements. He’s simply going to say that President Obama has failed to bring prosperity to America, and that he, Mitt Romney, will be able to do that. 

As for the President, he will say that Romney’s vision will not succeed. But, of course, the President doesn’t know that. It’s a hypothetical. I believe that if America continues its record spending, continues to borrow billions of dollars every day, the economy is going to get much worse, but I can’t prove that. It’s just what I believe. Many liberals don’t seem to care much about looming bankruptcy. They just want to provide social justice, and they don’t really care about the unintended consequences. For them fiscal responsibility is not a factor at all. (emphasis added)

So throughout this Democratic Convention this week, you’re going to hear that the Republicans want to hurt the folks by taking away their rightful stuff, and you’ll also hear about how the president wants to help the poor and middle class. And he will tax the wealthy and business owners in order to give the folks more stuff. It’s really useless to debate those points over and over. The Republicans want competition and an open marketplace capitalism. The Democrats want government control of the economy and social justice. You’re going to have to make the call.

Both Obama and Romney want power, and the way to get power is to tell voters that you’ll look out for them. So the rhetoric goes around and around and around and it doesn’t get us anywhere. Talking Points is a big performance guy. The President surely knows his administration has not been economically effective. In fact, he gave himself an “Incomplete” when asked to grade his overall performance. That may be generous, with every economic category down big. With the folks paying $2 per gallon more to gas up. With the nation owing $16 Trillion, “incomplete” seems to be a soft word.

America’s in trouble, and politicians in both parties better recognize it, and they’d better do something about it, or all of us will suffer big time in the years to come. We need unselfish leadership. Abraham Lincoln leadership. And we, we the people, need to recognize the truth: The B. S. has to walk."

O'Reilly: "No Question The Country Is Worse Off Today" | RealClearPolitics

Rove: The President's Fountain of Youth Is Drying Up - WSJ.com

I have long wondered how much economic pain Obama supporters are willing to bear from his wrong-headed economic policies before he loses their support. For some young voters it will never become a question because they bought the "Hope and Change" and think that Obama is a nice guy and that is good enough. They appear to have no idea that economic policy actually affects jobs and economic opportunities in the real world.

But for others reality is setting in. Paul Ryan touched on that in his speech at the Republican National Convention when he mentioned young people in their twenties still living in their childhood bedrooms with faded Obama posters wondering when things will improve enough for them to start their own lives.

"Mr. Obama's biggest problem with millennials is almost certainly his failure to reignite the economy. Robust growth is needed to create the new jobs they need.

The anemic 2.2% annual growth since 2009 has resulted in 12.7% unemployment among young men and women ages 18-29, according a July poll by Generation Opportunity, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization mobilizing young voters. Over 1.7 million young adults have become so discouraged that they have dropped out of the workforce. Youth unemployment would be 16.7% if they were factored in.

College graduates often find no one is hiring in their chosen career. Student loan debt is at record levels. According to a Pew Research Center survey in December, 53% of all young adults ages 18-24 said they 'live with parents now or moved back in with parents temporarily because of [the] economy.'

The July poll by Generation Opportunity reported that 84% of young Americans are delaying important decisions or feel their plans are in jeopardy. More than a third—38%—are delaying finding their own place. Some 31% said they are delaying starting a family, and 23% said they are delaying getting married. Dangerously for the president, 76% believe the lack of job opportunities—not the lack of government—is shrinking the middle class."

Rove: The President's Fountain of Youth Is Drying Up - WSJ.com

The Associated Press: Judge: Mass. Must Pay for Killer's Sex Change

I am glad that I don't live in Massachusetts for many obvious reasons. You can add to that list this story that I would call one of the most serious abuses of taxpayer money that I have ever heard of.

This guy was sentenced to life in prison for murder. What possible medical necessity can there be for this surgery? He is a convicted murderer! Why does some judge think the heavily abused taxpayers of Massachusetts have to bear the cost of this surgery?

We already have a local issue where providing what are reported to be just normal medical expenses of jail inmates are placing a serious strain on our county budget. I think this case is way beyond normal and is way out of bounds.

So here is another reason that I hope Scott Brown gets re-elected to the US Senate.

"In 2008, Republican lawmakers, including then-state Sen. Scott Brown, filed legislation to ban the use of taxpayer funds to pay for the surgery for prison inmates. The amendment did not make it into law.

Brown, now in the U.S. Senate, said Tuesday that the surgery would be 'an outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars.'

'We have many big challenges facing us as a nation, but nowhere among those issues would I include providing sex change surgery to convicted murderers,' Brown said in a statement. 'I look forward to common sense prevailing and the ruling being overturned.' "

The Associated Press: Judge: Mass. must pay for killer's sex change

The $4.351 Trillion Difference Between Obama & Clinton | The Weekly Standard

In many respects it seems to me that Obama is running more against himself and his first term than he is against Romney. I think Clinton addressing the Democratic National Convention (while Hillary stayed as far away as possible) is another manifestation of that.

Obama has not governed at all like Clinton. After his first two years as President and after the Democrats lost control of both the House and the Senate, Clinton moved to the middle. After his first two years as President and after the Democrats lost control of the House, Obama has moved even more aggressively to the far left. That and the obvious economic results of that do not earn Obama another four years so he is hoping that voters roll back the clock twenty years.

"Always looking 'forward,' President Obama has asked Bill Clinton—who was elected to the presidency 20 years ago—to...suggest to the American people (whether explicitly or implicitly) that this is really a choice between Clinton and George W. Bush, rather than between Obama and Mitt Romney. If you're Obama, this beats running on your record.

The only problem with this—in addition to the fact that Romney isn't Bush (and Paul Ryan isn't Dick Cheney)—is that Obama's record doesn't bear much resemblance to Clinton's. One could point to the rather obvious differences between the strong Clinton economy and the anemic Obama economy, between Clinton's signing welfare reform into law and Obama's undermining it via executive order, between Clinton's tacking to the center to work with Republicans and Obama's not moving to the center but playing to his base (rejecting the Keystone Pipeline, embracing gay marriage, making it illegal for Americans to offer or to choose health plans that don't include 'free' birth control, 'free' sterilization, and 'free' access to the abortion drug ella).

But one thing perhaps highlights the difference between Clinton and Obama most clearly: The increase in the national debt on their respective watches. Both men enjoyed two years of single-party control in Washington before they subsequently lost one (Obama) or both (Clinton) houses of Congress.  In this way, their circumstances have been similar, but their results have not."

The $4.351 Trillion Difference Between Obama & Clinton | The Weekly Standard

Goodbye, Middle East | Victor Davis Hanson

Hanson discusses how North America's anticipated energy independence from the Middle East (unless extreme environmentalists derail that dream) and the United States' fiscal issues and fatigue with the Middle East and the general hatred of the United States in that region all might lead to a disengagement from each other.

"Let’s get this all straight. America has been damned for its Machiavellian shenanigans in supporting authoritarian governments; for its naive idealism in using force to implant democracies; for its ambivalence in not using force to protect democratic protesters; and for its recent isolationism in ignoring ongoing Arab violence. Why, then, bother?"

Time and history will tell if this disengagement is a good thing. But is there any wonder why the growing concern and alarm in Israel?

"Note that anti-Americanism was often attributed to the unique unpopularity of Texan George W. Bush, who invaded two Middle Eastern countries, tried to foster democracies and institutionalized a number of tough antiterrorism security policies. In turn, Barack Obama was supposed to be the antidote — a Muslim family on his father’s side, his middle name Hussein, early schooling in Muslim Indonesia, a number of pro-Islamic speeches and interviews, apologies abroad and a post-racial personal story.

Yet recent polls show that Obama is even less popular in the Middle East than was Bush.

Staggering US debt also explains the impending divorce. With $5 trillion in new American borrowing in just the last four years, and talk of slashing $1 trillion from the defense budget over the next 10 years, America’s options abroad may be narrowing. President Obama also envisions a more multilateral world in which former US responsibilities in the Middle East are outsourced to collective interests like the United Nations, the European Union and the Arab League.

Perhaps soon the problem will be that we simply will not have enough power to use it for much of anything — and would have to ask the UN for permission if we did.

Usually nothing good comes from American isolationism, especially given our key support for a vulnerable democratic Israel. But for a variety of reasons, good and bad, our Humpty-Dumpty policy of Middle East engagement is now shattered.

And no one knows how to — or whether we even should — put it together again."

Goodbye, Middle East | RealClearPolitics

Egypt Kicks Sand in Obama's Face | JPost - Opinion

As I watched the news of the turmoil in Egypt result in Egypt falling under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood I had the feeling that I have seen this movie before and it doesn't end well. Here is one opinion from Jerusalem.

"This is all you need to know: The US government asked its good buddy Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy to inspect an Iranian ship suspected of carrying arms to Syria while it passed through the Suez Canal. Remember that to do so is arguably in Egypt’s own interest since Cairo is supporting the rebels while Tehran backs the regime.

The Egyptian government, despite three decades of massive US aid, licensing to produce advanced American tanks and other equipment, strategic backing and an invitation to Washington to meet Obama – refused. Indeed, Morsy headed for Tehran to attend a 'nonaligned' conference.

Does this mean Egypt is going to ally with Iran? No, Egypt will fight Iran for influence tooth and nail. The two countries will kill each others’ surrogates. But it means Morsy feels no friendlier toward America than he does toward Iran. And Cairo will not lift a finger to help Washington against Tehran unless, perhaps, America is willing to put a Muslim Brotherhood government in place in Syria, which might well happen.

In other words, under Jimmy Carter’s watch we got Islamist Iran – and, yes, things could have turned out very differently – and under Obama’s watch – and, yes, things could have turned out very differently – we got Islamist Egypt.

Egypt, the Arab world’s most important country, has been turned from an ally of America against the Iranian threat into, at best, a neutral between Washington and Tehran that will do nothing to help America.

Egypt, the Arab world’s most important country, has been turned from an ally of America – albeit an imperfect one, of course – in maintaining and trying to extend Arab-Israeli peace into a leading advocate of expanding the conflict and even potentially of going to war.
Egypt, the Arab world’s most important country, has been turned from an ally of America in fighting international terrorism into an ally of most international terrorist groups (except those that occasionally target Egypt itself)."

The Region: Egypt kicks sand in O... JPost - Opinion - Columnists

New York Times Proves Clint Eastwood Correct -- Obama Is Lousy CEO - Forbes

Forbes reviews a New York Times story and reaches an interesting conclusion.

"A New York Timesfront page story today — New York Times! — might have killed President Obama’s re-election hopes.

The story is called 'The Competitor in Chief — Obama Plays To Win, In Politics and Everything Else.' It is devastating.

With such a title, and from such a friendly organ, at first I thought Jodi Kantor’s piece would be a collection of Obama’s greatest political wins: His rapid rise in Illinois, his win over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries, the passage of health care, and so on.

But the NYT piece is not about any of that. Rather, it is a deep look into the two outstanding flaws in Obama’s executive leadership:

1. How he vastly overrates his capabilities:

2. How he spends extraordinary amounts of time and energy to compete in — trivialities."

I don't think any single article like this kills Obama's hopes to be re-elected but it does demonstrate that even liberal enclaves occasionally leak the truth about his incompetence as a leader in all respects.

New York Times Proves Clint Eastwood Correct -- Obama Is Lousy CEO - Forbes

York: New experience for Obama: GOP Attacks and Mockery | WashingtonExaminer.com

"Why did the Obama campaign fumble the 'are Americans better off than four years ago' question?

Why has President Obama been unable to put the 'you didn't build that' charge to rest?

And why has the campaign struggled to come up with a coherent response to the Republican convention? (Calling it a pack of lies doesn't count.)

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that, as Democrats begin their convention here in Charlotte, the Obama campaign is not hitting on all cylinders. The question is why a campaign that was so successful in 2008 is sputtering today.

Here's a theory: Barack Obama has never in his life run against a sharp, determined and aggressive Republican opponent. Facing Mitt Romney, who is all three, is a new experience for the president."

York: New experience for Obama: GOP attacks and mockery | WashingtonExaminer.com