The International House of Bacon

Race free edition!

* No, really - some meta-blogging here - if you’re going to comment, please be aware that there are people who may not think like you do, and as much as we might not want to mince words, sometimes we have to to get a point across, and that means going by the basic expected norms. This goes for everyone, even though yesterday was a tipping point of sorts - I don’t want to or plan to monitor everyone or set hard and fast ground rules, just remember that we’re all human beings here is all. We have great conversations with these posts, I’d like to not see this turn into a morass.

* Now, onto real issues: Obama wants to expand Bush’s faith-based initiatives. A more detailed explanation from the campaign can be read in PDF form here, and some statements from the man himself here. It’s okay that I find this whole thing completely laughable at this stage, right? Yet again, Obama, who was being praised again for this speech for its secularistic tendencies, decides to run from wherever he stood before to…what, exactly? I don’t even know who this is supposed to grab in this case, given his other positions. But this is still incredibly funny to me. I’m officially wondering where the line is for many of his supporters.

* More good news from Iraq: not only are we seeing great achievements in the benchmarks, but the Sunni boycott may be coming to an end. I still think Iraq is way overblown as an issue this election - the progress we’ve been seeing as of late almost definitely means that we’ll be seeing gradual withdrawals as we continue on anyway, and neither Obama or McCain are truly foolish enough to mess with that. Right?

* Surprise surprise - Justice Kennedy’s assertion about capital punishment for child rape? Not entirely true. I feel like this is what happens when you decide to create a “consensus” out of thin air.

* Yesterday marked 35 years of an all-volunteer military. Something to cheer about.

* The Heritage Foundation blog offers some comparisons with Obama’s tax plan and how it has affected others with similar situations.

* Oh, wait, something changed again - Obama apparently supports gay marriage now. Remember, he used to be against gay marriage. EDIT: I may have dove at this too early - this isn’t a de facto support for gay marriage, but it’s still an interesting move on his end.

* Obama in 2005: “We will NOT support the removal of [North Korea] from the State Department list of State Sponsors of Terrorism until such time, among other reasons, as a full accounting is provided to the Kim family regarding the fate of Reverend Kim Dong-Shik following his abduction into North Korea five years ago.” Obama in 2008: Apparently, as long as they meet disarmament conditions. I’m sure the Kim family is pleased.

* As gas prices rise, remember that Obama called for a global ban on fissile materials. You know, the stuff that makes nuclear power. The stuff that’s probably keeping demand for oil and coal-based energy at bay in many western nations. The stuff that could act as a clean, workable alternative for the United States very soon. Worth remembering.

* Obama’s also taking credit for welfare reform, even though he was against Clinton’s reform, against his state’s reform, and consistently dodged the question up to this point. Anyone want to tell me what positions Obama has that he won’t shift on?

* Protectionism sucks. You listening out there?

* Finally, a fun 1940 election ad.

Be good, folks!

* Interesting possibilities out of the Dakotas, where a possibly massive oil field has been discovered. It’ll be interesting to see how this pans out - the high end estimation is at 500 billion barrels, and even if we place it at 200 billion (a little higher than the low end), if we were able to pump out our daily usage as of 2004 and keep it domestically, it would cover us for over 20 years.

This is ultimately why I get annoyed by the whole alternative energy/ANWR drilling issue - do we need to develop alternative fuels at some point? Absolutely. Not even the oil companies would doubt that, as they will invariably pioneer any fuel advances we see that make logical financial sense (the most major hold up in alternative fuels as is). Instead, the peak oil myth is allowed to take hold, we haven’t built a new refinery in my lifetime, and the drivel we get from Congress and the Democratic candidates for President is that we need to tax the oil companies that hold very little of the world’s oil more to, I dunno, teach them a lesson?

The truth of the matter is that the government - both on state and local levels - doesn’t really care one bit about the energy situation in the United States. They’re screwing the poor and middle class by artificially keeping prices high with a gas tax that, minimum, eats up $2.00 per tank of gas you fill right off the bat, they’re screwing us by not pushing for more refineries, for blocking drilling in places we can get oil easily, by blocking alternative energies that do work like nuclear power. Instead, we see charades like this. A complete waste of time, and ultimately deals with nothing.

Biofuels aren’t the answer, people - smart drilling, smart use of the resources available to us, and realistic policy rooted in what’s actually happening in the world rather than pessimistic predictions lacking strong evidence is is more helpful.

* I liked this TownHall column by Mary Katherine Ham profiling Bobby Jindal, the young governor of Louisiana. Hey, Bridget, any LA-based insight you can offer?

* Jane Fonda endorses Barack Obama. This is interesting more because of, again, the Wright issue. For one, Obama’s supporters have largely had to play the “but…” card - with Hagee, with Parsley, and other people who have endorsed McCain and have somewhat unsavory views. If these people are, in reality, worth talking about, the fact that Obama has a number of high-profile endorsements of people with various hatred for America - whether it be rhetorical like Wright or actual like Fonda - is not going to help Obama, whether the issue is fair or not. How exactly can Obama respond to the fact that he attracts people who aided in propaganda to an enemy that was holding his Presidential opponent hostage, exactly? God, this is gonna get messy.

* On the other hand, elections + the internet = awesome. Hillary Clinton decided to revisit the 3am phone call, this time going after McCain and the economy. Never mind the rhetorical…oddity that the President would be recieving phone calls at 3am about economic issues, but we’ll run with it. Apparently, only six hours later, McCain’s team had a response out. Absolutely incredible. Whether it will work is another thing - I much prefer McCain’s approach to the economic situation right now than Clinton or Obama’s, as I’ve read too many histories of the Great Depression over the years and fear any wide-scale tinkering during a downturn at this point - but you have to give the McCain people credit for a job well done on this one. If McCain loses this election, it won’t be due to lack of trying.

* Columbia isn’t pleased with Obama’s trade rhetoric. What was that about other countries under Bush again? At least he waited until he was in office to allegedly alienate them.

* A little late, but hey - top 100 April Fools Day hoaxes of all time.

* Will Obama’s position on abortion hurt him in November? An interesting read from Michael Gerson at the Washington Post.

* Posing as a professional football player for fun and profit. The odd story of Ed McCabe, who was not a member of the 1980 Raiders.

* Of all the legacies of the Clinton Presidency, it’s sad that free trade is the one the Democrats are most willing to abandon. Furthermore, of all the legacies of the JFK Presidency, it’s equally sad that the Democrats can’t seem to grasp his basics, either.

* Ilya Somin on what the Presidential candidates can do to protect property rights. In a post-Kelo government, this is a really important issue that’s not getting enough play.

* I’m still new enough to New Hampshire that I cannot be held responsible for the rank stupidity of this specific legislator. The sooner we can oust Shea-Porter, the better.

* The big story in some circles earlier this week was the breathless story from the UK about the amount of people in the United States on food stamps. Apparently, that’s supposed to mean something. Even if it did, there’s a good reason why that number is up - the 2002 Farm Bill greatly expanded those who can be covered by food stamps. That Farm Bill looks worse and worse every time I look at it.

* This story literally made me sick to my stomach. Wow.

* More evidence that this economic situation may be regional in nature.

* Congressional Quarterly’s Ground Game blog lays out a) a great example why the Richardson endorsement irked me, and b) why Clinton is just foolish at this point about it.

Whew.

Good times. I have a ton of stuff piled up - I wish I could say I was busy this weekend, but I won’t lie - I spent most of it playing Blue Dragon. If you’re reading on the LJ side, I’m getting intermittent comment notifications, so if I haven’t replied to your comments from earlier, it’s because I only saw them about 20 minutes ago.

* The closest thing to zombies of late. Personally, I’d consider myself blessed in a few ways.

* The rumored number two porn collection in the world doesn’t actually exist. One less reason to visit Cambridge University, I suppose.

* Reason covers the Hugo Chavez disaster. To me, the Chavez situation continues to be one of the great disasters of the world currently - not nearly as bad as the situations in Africa and the Middle East, but a horrible situation that should really get more honest coverage.

* Attention, Democratic voters who subscribe to the “the world hates us because Bush’s diplomacy sucks” meme: claiming that a world leader lacks a soul isn’t going to repair that. And I don’t especially care if she’s right (because I’m inclined to believe she is) - that’s not how you deal with it.

* A fun link for video game fans, especially those with any fond memories of the Ultima series: The Many Deaths of Lord British.

* Larry Kudlow reminds us that if a recession really is coming, it ain’t there yet. Expect the media to continue to push the issue regardless, however - they haven’t been honest about the economy in years, so why start now?

* A great story about the guy who moved into a homeless shelter with $25, and came out a year later with an apartment and $5000 in cash.

* Cato demonstrates the reality surrounding part of Hillary Clinton’s health care plan. Oops!

* England floats a smoking permit. The mind reels.

* I hate the Dolphins because I’m a Patriots fan, but I’ve always liked Zach Thomas. He’s set to meet with the Pats this week, and the thought of it excites me to see him in a New England uniform.

* Sometime last year, you’ll remember a video circulating from 1994 about Dick Cheney’s position about war in Iraq. Namely, that he was against it for reasons many believe actually occurred during the last few years. Of course, it’ll be interesting to see people spin the video of Bill “I was always against the Administration’s war” Clinton making the case Bush should have made. Video here. If we did it right the first time, or if Clinton actually acted as he should have in 1998, it’d be very interesting to see where we’d be today, 10 years later.

* A great spring training prank by the Phillies.

Dunno if I’ll get another post out today, but who knows.

Okay, a few things because this is a very long election cycle. This will be somewhat disjointed:

1) What’s written here in terms of political opinion are just that - opinion. I do not pretend to have the market cornered on the truth on most issues.

2) Generally speaking, I don’t think you’re an idiot if you believe what you believe and have good, sound reasons as to why you believe what you believe. I may not agree with you, and may be puzzled as to why you’ve reached a certain conclusion, but I have a lot of respect for reasoned, logical opinion.

3) I’m not the same person I was four years ago, and a lot of my philosophies involving politics - and especially tactical voting - have changed considerably since the Kerry campaign.

I’m catching a lot of heat for my Obama entry today. I didn’t expect any, but perhaps that’s my first problem. Let me map this out in detail:

On the Democratic side, there are/were essentially four candidates running with a legitimately viable shot at winning the race: Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Richardson. A very interesting slate of candidates: the highly experienced statesman, the populist lawyer, the known commodity, and the bringer of hope. These archetypes existed largely before the campaign, as all of them were recognizeable long before the campaigns even started. The newest face in the bunch was Obama, and he had been electrifying people since the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Here’s the rub: Richardson appealed to a very small crowd, unfortunately, probably because of the headliners in the Democratic club ahead of him. Edwards is a world-class populist, and can sling the class war rhetoric better than anyone I’ve been alive to see. Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton - her name comes with both baggage and cache, and having Bill around doesn’t hurt you, either, since there’s at least the perception that you know what you’re getting. Obama’s set himself apart his own way, and it’s through “hope” and “change.” As noted in the last entry, this was all stuff he took onto the national stage four years ago, and to great acclaim. The message has stayed extremely consistent.

Now, for Obama, the question for him (and for me) is whether it’s been too consistent. He’s done nothing to set himself apart in Congress thus far - his two noteworthy legislative victories to this point have been minimal but positive, involving government oversight and accountability. His platform is not entirely different from his opponents in any substantial way. The only thing that sets him apart is his charisma, which he appears to have coming out of every pore.

This is where I get lost, for starters - populism really does nothing for me, and being inspired by a politician isn’t really my idea of a good time politically. But the annoying thing is that it appears that Obama supporters are split between two groups:

a) The inspired.
b) The educated.

Before you start tearing me down for this, there is overlap, for sure - many people excited about Obama know what he’s about, and that feeds into it. This is not where I’m critical, even if I think you’re wrong. My criticism comes where there appears to be a disconnect between the inspired and the educated, where Obama’s support is coming from folks who not only don’t necessarily care about what he’s standing for, but actively don’t know. Anecdotal, yes, and I’m not sure how to test this in a more controlled way, but you’d be shocked at how often I’ve encountered this exact concept.

This is where populism is dangerous. Yes, Obama’s about providing “hope” for America, but to find out why, you’ll have to take a deeper look. But don’t worry about it - he’s an agent for “change!” While the other guys are simply politics as usual, look at me - I’m different, and I’m a good enough speaker where I can inspire you where the guy in charge now isn’t all that good at it, and the other guys don’t get it the way I can.

I don’t understand how people, especially someone who goes out of their way to find out about a candidate’s positions and figure out where they stand, can’t be somewhat insulted by the nature of it. Besides the attempts at taking reign in the “change” department, but (and this is where I think it’s the worst) offering “hope” to those not significantly involved in the political process not through action or details, but through a glossy presentation heavy on emotional platitudes but light on detail. His book was called The Audacity of Hope - that he has the audacity to make emotional appeals in order to curry your favor should be a major warning sign, and you should be doubly offended if you’re a consistent Democrat or liberal. Have we forgotten the 2004 campaign already? Hell, ignore the campaign and go with the post-11 Sept political landscape, where one of the major criticisms of Bush was that he was preying on the fears of the electorate. Is it because “fear” has a negative connotation and “hope” a positive one that we’re suddenly okay with a Presidential candidate pushing emotional buttons? Is it because it’s your guy doing it this time? I don’t know.

A lot of my issue with this is shaded by my own problems in 2008. Even the candidates I supported (Paul, Thompson, Richardson) brought agendas to the table that I could not enthusiastically get behind. It’s one thing to be 2004 and have one proven commodity against someone likely to do worse, it’s entirely another to have a pile of choices that fail to address the problems currently inherent in the system.

I’m also, however, not easily plied by emotional appeals from politicians. While Giuliani, Huckabee, Clinton, etc definitely have supporters who have nebulous and/or inconsequential reasons they’re giving to vote for them, they’re not making those issues the centerpieces of their respective campaigns. And when the emotional appeals set Obama apart from the other candidates, it’s not a demonstration at all of competence or even of simply being Presidential. It’s hardly an effort in favor of him, and often comes across as an effort in the opposite direction, namely that he’s hoping that people ignore his agenda because he’s full of “hope!” and will create “change!”

All of this, of course, is my opinion. You’re free to vote as you wish and support who you wish, just as I’m free to question whether that’s a good idea, or even a smart way of going about it. But the expectation of intelligent voting isn’t a horrible thing, and no method of coming to a conclusion on a candidate is beyond criticism. If anything, I’m more annoyed by Obama than by his supporters, because I think there’s a good chance some of them aren’t aware of what they’re getting into.