The International House of Bacon

* 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.

Cuh-razy busy. I’m glad I spent an hour writing last night.

* Finally. The fact that it took the Justice Department 13 months to approve the XM/Sirius merger is completely ridiculous on all counts. It now requires FCC approval, hardly a given, but my goodness it should have NEVER taken this long to do.

* The best marriages are those where women marry men who are less attractive than themselves, research has found. Another reason to be glad I married up.

* Again, your campaign music video sucks. Stop making them.

* A Washington Post piece on how both candidates have been artificially inflating their roles. I’m glad the Post and paint this the way they do instead of, you know, calling them out on their crap. Alas, there’s a Republican to beat, so…

* Speaking of embellishment, it’s not hard to forget that Hillary Clinton is a master. This is why having the internet is so great - people generally don’t get away with stuff anymore. Permutations of this video, which show Hillary Clinton completely making up a story about her trip to Bosnia as First Lady, forced her to somewhat retract the story, but in her typical Clinton way. But hey, those of us on the right have known this to be a Clinton MO for a decade plus now - we’re glad to have the left on board, plenty of room on the bandwagon.

* It’s too bad we could never see this on American television. A debate between a black magic shaman and an Indian rationalist turned ugly when the rationalist challenged the shaman to kill him live on television using black magic. Two hours later, the shaman failed, the television station stayed with it the whole time, and the rationalist lives to tell the story. Very bizarre.

* After finally having an empty enough stomach to read more about the Richardson endorsement, it makes me wonder why I even entertained the idea of supporting him:

“I am very loyal to the Clintons. I served under President Clinton. But I served well. And I served the country well. And he gave me that opportunity,” Richardson told “Fox News Sunday.”

“But you know … it shouldn’t just be Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton,” he said.

You tell ‘em, Bill.

* Real-life Rickrolling. I love it.

* Why shouldn’t I be worried about that California ruling on homeschools again?

* The Washington Post also offered an op-ed on a perspective on Jeremiah Wright from a black minister. Sure, he doesn’t speak for everyone, but the broader point is that neither does Wright. Also, a rightfully vicious piece by Christopher Hitchens on the Wright speech. The money shot?:

You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily. (Yet why do I say I am surprised? He still gets away with absolutely everything.)”

Hitchens points out that Obama’s grandmother is alive, although not entirely well, at 85 years old. I’m wondering how she feels under that bus…

* National Review’s Campaign Spot breaks down the raw vote totals in the Democratic race.

* Finally, a pessimistic look at New Hampshire prospects coming this fall. I’ll try not to light myself on fire.

Happy opening day!

Gah!

* Michael Barone breaks down the superdelegate issue. I think it’s going to be impossible for the Democrats to finish up things before the convention - either they’re going to go with a known commodity in Clinton or an unknown in Obama, and if they’re leaning toward the unknown, they’re going to wait until he’s as fully vetted as possible - the Democrats can’t afford for Obama to have another Wright skeleton in his closet, and I’d imagine that fear is palpable, if not unspoken. That’s what the superdelegates are for, right? Don’t buy the Politico hype - the superdelegates have a role, and never underestimate the ability of the Democratic Party to shoot itself in the foot.

* QandO on why Glen Greenwald is a hack.

* Patterico had two excellent posts this weekend: First, a little straight talk on McCain and the whole Saddam/Al Queda thing that the Los Angeles Times decided to hammer home. Even I didn’t know of many of the quotes coming directly from the 9/11 Commission. Secondly, a great takedown of an Obama endorsement from a so-called Republican. Makes me wish I didn’t have such a visceral reaction to John McCain.

* Massachusetts schools aren’t failing, they’re simply “Commonwealth priorities.” I hate self-esteem sugarcoating.

* Many of you were right: Albany’s screwed. Spitzer’s replacement may have to step down for his own corruption issues, and the next guy in line is close to being indicted as well? Yikes.

* The Washington Post on a possible reality of an Obama presidency. I must say - calling your allies “so-called” won’t help matters, he’s right.

* My favorite story in ages: red light cameras are being shut down in some places because they’re too effective and end up being a drain on revenues as a result. Again: why do people wonder why I don’t trust law enforcement?

* Heavy but cool if you can parse it: a look at a possible fall in oil prices. Lots of stuff on petrodollars and investment and peak oil and on and on.

* Hugo Chavez moves to shut down the last remaining critical news outlet. That’s what you get when you try to stand up to a coked-up dictator.

* Bill Richardson endorsed Obama last week. I’m disappointed, but not shocked.

* A great story from inside the organ donation market. An interesting note from the piece - if every cadaver had its organs harvested and handed out, we still wouldn’t have enough. As creepy as it sounds, selling organs still seems like a better idea all around.

* GraniteGrok on how John Sununu’s challenger is completely stupid when it comes to oil prices. Shaheen is typical of the current Democratic/liberal mindset on economic issues right now - no forward thinking, and no clear progress on ideas that can solve the problems we’re facing.

* A pretty great story about how one of my favorite films, His Girl Friday, only found an audience after it slipped into the public domain. It’s somewhat presented as anti-copyright extension limits, and while I appreciate the public domain and the benefits it gives people on a whole, I’m also very pro-getting-people-compensated for what they do. It’s a very hard line to draw, especially in a situation that is inherently arbitrary, but I’m not convinced Disney should have to worry about losing Mickey Mouse while it’s still around, nor am I necessarily convinced that, say, Mark Twain’s great-great-grandkids are entitled to money for copies sold of Huckleberry Finn (note: I know Twain’s work is in the public domain).

* Are burglaries declining because of cheap imports?

Whew. That should do it for now.

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.

Excuse me while I take some time to sift through links I’ve had sitting around for a while.

Over at Betsy’s Page, Newmark highlighted a piece about “Care Bear Politics.” The piece, based off of a blog post by Reason’s Julian Sanchez and an article at Real Clear Politics:

And then there’s the Care Bear vision, which takes as given the perfectability of humankind and correspondingly interprets all problems as fixable, given the right conditions. Care Bearism involves, in Thomas Sowell’s words, “a disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible or motivated by unworthy purposes.” Should the critics prove, after the fact, to have been right, Care Bearists grant themselves absolution because their hearts were in the right place.

Since at least the 1960s, liberalism has provided an ideological wigwam under whose pastel-colored flaps the Caring-American community has gathered to emote and caucus in its therapeutic and sentimental fashion, always looking forward to a better future (in part, because it means they don’t have to look at the wreckage of their past schemes). Some latter-day conservatives began as liberals, until they understood that The Care Bear Stare was no effective defense against problems originating in human nature, which is not infinitely malleable, and in the intractability of evil.

While the conclusions of the piece leave a bit to be desired, the relative concept therein - from Sowell’s words to the examples at the start of the piece (both of which I’ve encountered numerous times) - are not only apparent, but seem to be manifesting itself in this election cycle to new heights.

I went into this election not so much tired of Bush (although there’s more than a little exhaustion) as tired of the brand of politics that have been ushered in - a “do-something” attitude, if you will, that seemed to reach new heights even as Bush branded himself a conservative regardless of his actual resume. With the failure of the Thompson run to gain traction, and knowing full well that Ron Paul is a non-factor, we’re stuck with more of the same, more of this “Care Bear” mentality:

* Barack Obama with his nondescript “change” manifesto.
* Mike Huckabee’s plans for the Constitution.
* John Edwards’s…everything.
* Mitt Romney’s abysmal record in Massachusetts.
* Hillary Clinton’s Santa Claus view of government.
* Rudy Guiliani’s record in NYC.
* John McCain’s record in Congress.

To use a cliche I hate, it’s the same pig dressed in different lipstick, and, perhaps more interestingly, is proof positive that this sudden lurch rightward that is alleged since Bush entered office is completely nonexistent - that the centrist Bush with his “compassionate conservatism” and government-can-do-it attitude introduced into the Republican Party and is apparently embraced by those with national recognition. Sure, the Jim DeMints, Jeff Flakes, and Jon Kyls of the Repubican Party exist, but most people reading this won’t recognize all three of those names for a while.

So what does this mean? It means that, right now, we have seven Care Bears running for President. Sure, some of them have lesser powers than others - as bad as McCain is, for instance, the damage he could do doesn’t come close to Edwards - but we’re still heading down that same road that so many are allegedly tired of. Especially in the age of large deficits, a slowing economy, and financial uncertainty, can we afford it in any context?

We know the answer to this, of course, but none of the folks who’ll be President in a year are actually going to answer it.