The International House of Bacon

6 inches of sleet for me, a slate of links for you. None about Obama, so you’ll have to find something else to get angry about. d;-)

* GetReligion has a great entry up about the media missing the boat on Huckabee’s rhetoric. It’s a good exposure into the liberal media concept - it’s not necessarily that the media is going out of its way to be biased, but rather that the media’s makeup is generally Democratic, and there’s probably a bit of confirmation bias involved in the whole thing. Essentially, the media misses the boat with Huckabee often because the major orgs don’t have the type of diversity in the newsroom to catch these sorts of things when they come up. It’s an interesting framework to think about when discussing media biases - it’s not always right/left.

* Radley Balko posted at the Reason blog about the online gambling ban, which involved the US Trade Department making some concessions to work around some international treaties. The terms weren’t disclosed, and a Freedom of Information Act request was denied based on “national security” reasons. More at Cato and the links within the two posts, but how ridiculous.

* Also from the Cato blog, a new study about how non-smokers actually cost more for the health system than smokers do. A bit of a hole in the universal healthcare argument.

* Kudlow notes the strange coincedence that the stock market has plunged around the same time as the last few primary contests.

* OverLawyered notes that McCain’s big wins yesterday repudiate one of the main reasons for his campaign reform bill. Money doesn’t win elections, people. If they did, President Perot would have been quite the hoot.

* New England Republican gets it. The second half is worth reading for Democrats and liberals as well, just substitute “terror” with “Iraq” and the concept is the same - there’s more going on in the world that is ultimately more important. The problem, unfortunately, is that there isn’t a Goldwater or Reagan type waiting in the wings to steer the Republican Party back to what made them worthwhile in the first place.

* Stanley Kurtz over at the National Review presents an interesting theory about the electorate as it stands, namely that the right missed the boat. It’s a little more hysterical and inflammatory than it needs to be, but the gist of it is that the education system has moved left with no real significant response from the other side, thus churning out people who have no serious insight into the other side of things. Hell, I went to private Catholic schools and can largely speak to that. It’s interesting to see if this holds water long-term.

* Linked everywhere, Right Wing News interviews Thomas Sowell. Sowell’s the most important intellectual on the right today, and, IMO, is proof positive that you can make a charismatic case for wonkish views. The Vision of the Anointed should be required reading for anyone with even a cursory interest in politics.

* Finally, if you haven’t been keeping up with the Drew Carey Project at Reason’s video site, you’re missing out on some pretty good stuff. His latest is on the middle class, and how the assumption that we’re getting squeezed doesn’t really hold water. It fits in well with Reason’s piece on the middle class from last year as well as the fact that the middle class is disappearing because they’re getting richer.

This video spoke to me in a different way, though - for those of us in the middle class (and Ann & I fit into the lower middle class by most accounts), it is a lot about choices. Our savings rate isn’t quite what we might want it to be, and some weeks may feel harder than others, but a lot of that has had to do with the choices we’ve made - we chose to buy a house and have a mortgage as opposed to rent for less. I bought a newer car because I felt a car payment now would work out better in the long run. We go out to eat once a week, we try to catch a movie, we go to Red Sox games. The important part? We’re happy.

This isn’t to say that luck or outside influences aren’t occasionally a factor - we’re certainly lucky we haven’t had medical catastrophes or that my employment issues didn’t hurt us long term the way that they do for other people - but that the concept of a “middle class squeeze” is largely a bizarre manifestation, and one we can probably blame on the Lou Dobbses and the John Edwardses of the world.

A quickie because I missed a few last night.

* If you’re voting in the Democratic primary today, think about it for a second: Barack Obama has a record he can theoretically be proud of, so why isn’t he running on it? Why doesn’t he want you to know what he’s been up to?

I found this picture in an LJ community posting, it’s fun:

* I’ve had this sitting open on my desktop for ages now, so I may as well link to it: Can Atheists Be Parents? Time asked the question in the context of a New Jersey adoption case where a set of prospective adoptive parents were denied due to the atheism angle. The case is from 1970, but the issue still remains: Volokh notes some very recent judicial precedents regarding this sort of craziness, and it’s a little chilling. It’s interesting - this may be one of the first times where both the majority (read: believers) and the fringe minority (read: nonbelievers) can lay claim to having their beliefs persecuted and not be blowing smoke. I’ve written at length about my atheism here, and I have more to come.

* Listen, I know it toes the line of a stereotype, and I still feel like it’s a low blow to highlight it, but I have to ask - is there a way to criticize Hillary Clinton’s crying without being accused of mysogyny? I’m all for real emotional output, but something appears to be off about this whole thing. I can’t tell if I’m bothered by her crying (which only seems to come up when she’s being complemented) or bothered by the knee-jerk reactions to it at this point.

* Of course, I know that Hillary’s not going to cry for those who’s wages she plans to garnish to cover her misguided health plan. Taking a page from the John Edwards “Say you’re helping the middle class while screwing them” playbook, it would (of course) only apply to those “workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it,” thus removing the choice motive and screwing everyone in the process. This has little difference to it than the Massachusetts failure, which simply charges an absurd tax surcharge as opposed to wage garnishing (as if the victim recognizes the difference) , but hey, it’s one step closer to socialized medicine, so get on board or you hate the poor, or something.

* I like QandO’s insight into the possible general election race.

* Linked a few places, Jennifer Abel in Hartford went inside the 9/11 Truth movement a bit, and to really fascinating results. Truthers are crazy.

* Finally, a fun photoshop contest from Woot, inserting products they sell into Presidential campaigns. I, of course, love the Obama one, but they’re all worth seeing.

* Wizbang took a look at where the government spending priorities have been since the New Deal. Interesting breakdown, even I noticed odd things that I didn’t before. Worst point? The amount of money that we’ve mandated by law - we won’t get anywhere unless we attack that, first. Earmarks are a drop in the bucket.

* I’ve seen this a couple places, the Will.I.Am “Yes We Can” video inspired by Obama. Yes, it gives me chills, but not the good ones. It makes me extremely uneasy.

* Reason posted an article on Presidential candidates and drug policy. Worth reading as a recap of how far we really need to go in terms of how we handle prohibition.

* GraniteGrok highlights three stories about an emerging Democratic scandal in New Hampshire. The interesting part for me is that the NH GOP had a scandal of their own a few years back, and this effectively evens the score a bit. So much for feeding off of good will.

* No matter which way you look at it, the budget is screwed with the next guy in. Lowest increase is a few billion dollars.

* An oldie from OverLawyered: Pro-consumer usually means anything but.

* WFMU notes that while The FCC is fining ABC for a naked butt, The Netherlands plan to air Deep Throat. This is why the United States is backwards.

I swear - barring any newsworthy notes or major policy hits, I don’t see myself posting anything major about Obama again until closer to convention time. With Super Tuesday tomorrow, however, one more major post to tie up some loose ends seems appropriate. This may get a little scatterbrained, but bear with me.

1) First, it was noted in the comments of the last entry, as well as from an unrelated friend who I don’t believe reads this, that there’s a pretty decent comparison between the Obama campaign for President and Deval Patrick’s campaign for governor in Massachusetts last year. It goes beyond the race issue - although the media, of course, isn’t lax in pointing that out - but rather a similarity in message and inspiration over substance. The most glaring one, of course, is the simple slogans - Patrick’s campaign materials ran with a “Together We Can” message (can do what, exactly? Can destroy the budget? Can make an end-around the legislature? Never mind, I’m getting off topic), while Obama’s is a more, uh, “inspiring” “Change we can believe in.” If Patrick’s record so far is representative of the “change” that this nation can ultimately “believe in,” I’ll pass.

It’s worth noting that 17 lawmakers who supported Patrick in his gubernatorial race are looking at Hillary Clinton for tomorrow’s primary. Why is that? Says one anonymous lawmaker, “We’ve now seen firsthand what happens when you put someone in office who lacks experience, but has extraordinarily inspiring rhetoric,” said one lawmaker who asked for anonymity. “The inspiring rhetoric is compelling and appealing, but what has that gotten us?” Sound familiar?

This is why I find it curious that people are so willing to defend inspirational politics like this. It’s by design, people - keep the electorate focused on the shiny while making them jump through hoops to find some meat. On a message board I participate in, one person made the link between the Obama campaign and the more policy-wonkish Kerry and Gore campaigns of the previous elections. The problem, though, wasn’t the wonkishness, it was the candidate - Gore was dull and Kerry allowed himself to be “electable” and left the door open for Bush and his campaign to define him. Obama can be inspirational and charismatic while presenting real ideas in a campaign stop setting. He can make the changes that he feels we need specific AND interesting, and make them the centerpiece. There’s a clear reason why he doesn’t do it, though, and the question Obama supporters have to be asking themselves at this point, nearly a year(!) into his campaign.

Oh, and what’s the most ironic part of Obama’s campaign thus far? He’s actually come out and attacked Hillary Clinton for not being specific enough. The gall, seriously.

2) I got a good deal of flack about my assertion that a good deal of Obama supporters are either a) not supporting Obama based on positions, or b) are actively not interested/ignorant of his positions. The unfortunate part is that the data to back this assertion up is not readily forthcoming, but I can try to demonstrate as best I can as to how wide this net is cast:

a) I did an informal, poorly constructed poll at the LiveJournal Liberal community. I’m not going to try and do the math here, so just bear with me: of the 57% of respondents who are planning to vote for Obama, fewer people cited agreeability with his platform than electability, “hope,” or “change.” 52% of total respondents (pro- and anti-Obama) claim to have firm knowledge of his platform, with roughly 42% claiming to have some knowledge or very little outside of Iraq. Unscientific, but this is out of a community of people who pay close attention to politics and the political process - if Obama’s policy messages are only getting through to about half of potential voters (not even HIS potential voters, but ALL potential voters), what does that say about the rest?

b) Here’s a Hispanic Nashville posting explaining why this author is supporting Barack Obama: “Martin Luther King, Jr., in his acceptance speech for the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize, called for “an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men.” That kind of love is the value that will inform my vote on Tuesday, and it is why I support Barack Obama.” Values, specifically “love.” Okay…

c) A lot was said about Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement under the headline “A President Like My Father.” Never mind that JFK has benefited from the same misdirection that Obama benefits from now, but what’s the theme? Let’s look at the first paragraph:

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

Oh, he’s inspiring and hopeful. I get it. She does mention policy off-handedly (”They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.”), but the policy stuff isn’t why she likes Obama in this case. And, again, if the plans are detailed, why aren’t we highlighting them? Why isn’t he highlighting them? I’ll come back to this point in a moment.

d) Two politicians from Hawaii map out why Obama should be the candidate. Why, you ask? “From the standpoint of the Hawai’i steering committee, Senator Obama represents the best in all of us. He wants to replace the fear that has overwhelmed this nation’s political discourse with hope.” Oh. Hope. But it’s okay, because Obama has some great ideas to change things, right? His strength comes from somewhere that isn’t nebulous, correct? “Because Senator Obama’s strength isn’t just his personal biography or his ability to deliver powerful speeches — it is in his desire and capacity to change the way we talk to each other, to improve the way we go about solving the nation’s greatest challenges.” Oh…

And those two people wrote this in 2006. That this still rings true today is incredibly damning.

e) The Vermont Cynic appears to be a University of Vermont publication that posted an endorsement of Obama recently. According to them, Obama “is more liberal, more straightforward, and far more electable” than Hillary Clinton. His Senate activity hasn’t been all that exciting to this college crowd, but that’s okay! Why? “There is something to his message. It resonates differently and in a more positive light than competing voices in politics and outside of the realm, but also in a way that is daring and refreshing. His whole candidacy captures something that Clinton’s fails to. It has a soul.”

f) A letter to the editor in Fresno lends support to Obama, as he’s “Obama is the only candidate who has the character, the courage and the passion to change Washington politics.”

g) Ted Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama. Leaving behind the question as to whether that would create an extra liability, Kennedy is able to cite two or three policy initiatives from work in the Senate within a few paragraphs (nothing terribly specific, mind you), but what’s the overriding theme of the endorsement? Using Kennedy’s words himself, Obama is “the candidate who can best inspire all of us, who can lift our vision, summon our hopes and dreams to meet the great challenges of our time, and make us all believe again that America’s best days are still to comes”

I lifted all of these from Google searches for “why i support obama” over the last few days. These are the top results. Are people supporting Obama based on policy reasons? I’m sure those people exist, but that’s not the centerpiece of the campaign or the main reason for support. This should be something people are concerned about.

The root of the problem with Obama ultimately isn’t his policy initiatives - those are problematic, but probably not for a Democratic voter - but that people do not know them. We see what happens when this occurs, we know that educated, informed people don’t care to highlight them, and we know that Obama’s made great gains amongst those who are not typically involved with the process. What happens when those people actually learn his positions? Will they be okay with it, or will he already be in office and be too late to fix? In an election that could very well yield a modern Jimmy Carter (from either side), is this where we’re heading?

I don’t know for sure, but I do know that I’m not crazy. I don’t see the appeal, especially when his entire campaign is designed to keep you from discussing the very issues we allegedly need “change” from.

1) Lack of aggression. Everyone’s all pissy about Belichick deciding to go for it on 4th and 13 as opposed to a 50 yard field goal - I liked that move. I didn’t like Belichick not throwing a red flag on the fumble that Woods clearly fell on and then the Giant defensive lineman stole after the play was called dead. I didn’t like Belichick punting from 4th and 3 inside the Giants’ 50 yard line. I didn’t like the fact that the Pats didn’t make a single memorable vertical attempt the entire first half.

2) Game planning. It was apparent in the first half that whatever the plan was, it wasn’t working. The Pats scored one touchdown in part due to a pass interference call, and that was essentially it. In the second half, though, it appeared to me that the adjustment was to…not adjust. Brady was getting wrecked, but I didn’t see extra tight ends in there. I didn’t see an extra blocking back, Faulk was still going out for passes. They finally got rolling in the 4th quarter with the slant patterns, but why did it take so long? The Patriots came back in the first game against the Giants in part because the blocking was much improved in the second half. What happened last night?

3) Bad luck. After all, the Pats got very lucky against the Ravens this season, had some significant breaks in the last 8 games leading up to the Super Bowl anyway, but, with the exceptions of the 12 men review and the pass interference on Watson, the luck didn’t go New England’s way. The fumble recovery by Woods, the blatant offensive pass interference on the sideline throw, that absolutely incredible catch by Tyree against Harrison in that final drive - sometimes, the football gods just say “enough,” and that’s that.

At the end of the day, the Patriots simply got outplayed, though. Outplayed, outcoached, outclassed. I haven’t seen that since the 2002 season, and that’s what makes this loss somewhat heartbreaking. Kudos to the defense for stepping up as well as they did, but that’s about it. The rest was a dismal failure I haven’t seen from this football club in years.

Ah well - 10 days until pitchers and catchers.

If anyone’s even reading at this time of day.

* Personal opinion: Patriots 38, Giants 20. I don’t see this being close.

* From The Locker Room, an article at Tech Central Station about the successes of free market reforms around the world. A pretty interesting list.

* Cato at Liberty on Ted Kennedy actually getting it regarding the role of the judiciary v. the role of the legislative branch. I suppose you can teach an old dog new tricks.

* John Tierney at the New York Times signed he and his wife up to eHarmony to see if they could get a match, and then wrote about the results. A pretty interesting insight into the whole eHarmony thing.

* FactCheck.org debunks the long-standing myth that the unemployment stats don’t count folks who aren’t recieving benefits. A piece worth reading even if you already knew that.

* I’m very glad John Edwards is gone, but The Munchkin Wrangler posted a beautiful takedown of Edwards’s campaign yesterday that’s worth linking to.

* Julia Sweeney does a one-woman show about her atheism, and lists 10 things she’s learned.

Have a good weekend.

I’ll never find time for everything I need to say, I swear.

Books:

The Princess Diaries Volume 9: Princess Mia - Meg Cabot: The latest in the long line of Princess Diaries books - this one did very little for me until the very end. So much of it involved Mia moping about her boy troubles and it seemed amazingly out of character and just didn’t work for me. Regardless, the way it ended left a great setup for the final book in the series.

Ultimates 2 - Mark Millar: I can’t say I loved this the way I loved the first set of Ultimates, but it’s still a really interesting perspective that I never expected.

Born Standing Up - Steve Martin: Steve Martin could write about paper and I’d likely be entranced. A really neat memoir about his rise as a stand-up comic, very fun and enlightening.

Size 14 is Not Fat Either - Meg Cabot: I can’t say I’m a huge fan of the Heather Wells mystery stuff anymore, but that’s probably less about Meg Cabot and more about my natural aversion toward mystery novels in general.

The Opposite of Invisible - Liz Gallagher: An interesting read, for sure. It took me a while to get into, as the narrative on this one was very unique, but it roped me in soon enough where I pretty much couldn’t stop until I finished this shortish YA novel. It’s not perfect, but it’s really a great, interesting story with good characters, which is not something that always happens in YA lit these days.

Love is a Mixtape - Rob Shefffield: I wanted to love this book for obvious reasons, but, at the end of the day, it really came down to the fact that mix tapes matter, but only to a) you, and b) the person you made it for. You’ll never truly understand the impact of a tape for anyone seeing it from a third party perspective. So maybe I did love this book. Hm.

Ultimate Spider-Man: Power and Responsibility/Learning Curve: God damn it, you guys. I guess I’m a Spider-Man fan now. I’m really enjoying this.

Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution - Woody Holton: “Hey, I have an idea, I’ll write a 200+ page history of the Constitution using only debt and money as the basis.” Maybe the whole Ron Paul thing has really made me overly sensitive to money policy lately, but this got very tiring very quickly. An interesting premise that would have worked better in a compilation of ideas around the Constitution rather than a full-length work.

Ex Machina: The First Hundred Days - Brian K. Vaughan: Vaughan is probably my favorite comic writer at this early stage of things. This is really one of the most fascinating concepts for a comic I’ve seen since Y: The Last Man, and he wrote that, too. I’m excited to keep going with this series.

Liberal Fascism - Jonah Goldberg: An Important Book in every sense of the word. I never expected Goldberg to have this sort of book in him - it’s well-researched, well-written, and presents a concept that everyone on the right has felt like they’ve known, but had nothing to back it up. My only complaint is that this book needed to come out 8 years ago, not today. Highly recommended for everyone, really. Ignore what you know about his sometimes abrasive writing for the National Review, this is a very good read.

Movies:

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street: Essentially, mostly what I expected from a film version of this, although it’s cut in a lot of weird ways. Worth seeing, definitely, but yeah.

Cloverfield: I still think this was perfect for what it was - a Big Monster Movie. That time away from it has only improved it in my mind says a lot, I think.