The International House of Bacon

Round one. More today/tomorrow as time permits.

* First, some old stuff: GDP for 1Q 2008 was revised upward, further staving off recession fears.

* One of the more damning pieces on Obama I’ve seen recently comes from CNSNewswire. Obama’s been consistently inconsistent as of late, but you’d think he’d make the easy things happen - like, for instance, providing equal pay amongst his own Senate staff when he’s touting “equal pay” on the campaign trail. Why, then, are the women on his staff paid noticeably less than their male equivalents? If “equal pay” is so important, why can’t he so easily walk the walk here? This doesn’t appear to be some bizarre Senate regulation - women on McCain’s staff actually make more than the men - so I’m not sure what the issue is unless, well, it’s proof positive that discrimination isn’t the default reason for income disparity.

* Where’d Obama’s state senate records go?

* Mississippi wants to make it illegal to serve the obese.

* The Mehdi Army led by Moqtada Al-Sadr? Essentially dissolved into an insurgent group, perhaps worse. Obviously, this is further indication of the need for a rapid withdrawal from the disaster therein.

* RedState provides a clearinghouse for Obama’s consistent position on gun rights.

* Kyle Smith on the gap between people’s personal fiscal perception and their perception of the rest of the country. It’s quite the disparity.

* QandO offers Obama observations. Among them is a discussion of Obama’s line in The Audacity of Hope, where he declares himself to be “a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” Charles Kesler, a professor and editor of the Claremont Review of Books, notes that “Democrats in general, I would submit, confuse change with improvement. They fail to weigh the costs and benefits of change, to consider its unintended consequences, or to worry about what we need to conserve and how we might go about doing this faithfully.”

* Obama finally condemns the folks behind the “General Betrayus” nonsense. Still waiting for him to condemn Murtha…

* Not shockingly, Wesley Clark strayed off script and Obama had to step out and say “oh, no, he’s not speaking for me.” The funny thing is what Clark was saying not too long ago, when it wasn’t a Republican with the war record. This sort of tit-for-tat is kind of silly, but shame on Clark for being so blatantly partisan about the whole thing.

* Joe Ponanski on Baseball Hall of Fame voting. Interesting read if you’re into that stuff.

* Fun with the American Family Association. When your autofilter consistently changes “gay” to “homosexual,” unintended hilarity ensues in Olympics coverage of sprinter Travis Gay.

* Finally, a fond goodbye to Coney Island’s masturbating walrus. If that’s not your style, enjoy the greatest Rickroll ever.

End of the week for me.

* Same old Washington politics as usual:

In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.

“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself,” he answered.

So let’s count the problems here:

a) Apparently, everything he said about NAFTA was, at worst, a lie and at best, “overheated and amplified.”
b) This “different politician” who’s not interested in the “same Washington politics” did the same pandering handwave to grab voters in the primary.
c) Getting votes is more important than trade diplomacy.

The last one is especially egregious, given the continued unsupported allegation that Bush has wrecked our diplomatic relationships. At what point can/should foriegn nations trust a President Obama on this issue? At what point should the voting public on any issue at this point, given that such a tenuous issue appears to have just been a stage play?

I’m sure this will get waved off as “just part of a campaign” or whatever. Unfortunately, even if you can wave it off internally, Obama has set a standard for himself. A standard he has failed to meet time and time again, and this is just the latest example.

* More change we can believe in: Obama apparently had a phone conversation with Iraq’s foriegn minister. Obama seemed pleased, pushing his troop withdrawal plan and saying no issues were raised in Iraqi quarters about it. Too bad Iraqi Foriegn Minister Hoshyar Zebari disagrees. According to the Washington Post Zebrari “told Mr. Obama that ‘Iraq is not an island.’ In other words, an American withdrawal that destabilized the country would also roil the region around it and embolden U.S. adversaries such as al-Qaeda and Iran. ‘We have a deadly enemy,’ Mr. Zebari said. ‘When he sees that you commit yourself to a certain timetable, he will use this to increase pressure and attacks, to make it look as though he is forcing you out. We have many actors who would love to take advantage of that opportunity.’”

Zebari is not against a gradual withdrawal - a policy currently in place by the current President, tenuously supported by the generals on the ground (who Obama claims he’d listen to), and likely to continue if McCain is elected. Which makes more sense, truly?

* Now, for actual change: McCain’s energy policy is calling for an end to the ban on offshore drilling, 45 new nuclear power plants, and more clean coal technology, among others. What makes this good? These are real changes from the current priorities, these are proven energy sources, and it’s a good, if imperfect, combination of working for the near future while sustainably preparing for the long term. Compare this with Obama’s push toward the “green” fad, with nameless “green energy sectors” and a significant amount of money being poured into unproven and often detrimental technologies. Even better, Obama is floatinf $150b toward those technologies, minimum - McCain’s plan does not need to spend much, if any, extra taxpayer money to get rolling. Go figure.

* On a sad energy note, apparently, the Bakken formation is a bit of a myth in terms of how much it holds. It still holds a very substantial amount of oil, which is somewhat being retrieved, but not as much as has been rumored.

* Meanwhile, while we discuss issues of energy and war, the House felt the need to ban interstate transport of monkeys. Thanks, guys. It’s not like our taxes are slated to go up in a couple years or anything.

* Oh, I shouldn’t say that’s the only stupid thing to occur yesterday: Maurice Hinkley, Massachusetts Democrat in the House, thinks the oil refineries should be nationalized. I’m not really interested in Hugo Chavez, buddy.

* Patrick Ruffini writes about the effect of the internet on the campaign for The Next Right. A pretty interesting writeup about the approaches of both campaigns.

* William Perry is part of Barack Obama’s National Security Group. This was his position on dealing with North Korea in 2006. Again, if Obama actually listened to the advisers he brought on, he might actually be a worthwhile candidate.

* What Obama’s tax policies mean for revenues. This doesn’t talk about the spending outlays, and kind of puts the lie to Obama’s desires to curb deficits.

* Conspiracy of the day: Obama’s positions on Iraq and his relationship with Tony rezko. Presented more out of amusement than importance.

* Finally, Cheetos porn. Not specifically unsafe for work, but unsafe enough given that it’s a man in his underwear simulating sexual acts with a giant Cheeto.

There might be enough for two today, we’ll see…

* Reason provides a link dump of sorts regarding the minimum wage hike and its effects on things like summer jobs. It’s not entirely surprising, really.

* John Tierney at the New York Times discusses alternative options after the Republicans in Congress finally grew a backbone and stopped the cap-and-trade lunacy from becoming law. I’m not sure how palatable this can be to a wide range of points of view, but it’s worth noting if only to credit the outside-the-boxness of it all.

* Happy anniversary, proposition 13. I’m actually curious about what a lot of readers think of this sort of thing.

* Willisms on economic growth in “right to work” versus union states. Interesting, if not entirely predictable, results. As an aside, as much as I’m against forced unionization and such, “right to work” isn’t a term that really works well with me, and I only use it because I can’t figure out a better description.

* The sun rises, and the population doesn’t see the media as objective. Naw, really? Lots of interesting perception topics there.

* All over the place yesterday was Fred Hiatt’s piece on the investigation of statements made by the Bush administration in the run-up to Iraq. As most of us knew, “Bush lied” was nothing more than unsubstantiated hyperbole at best, and this essentially confirms it. I can’t wait to read the whole report.

* Kudos to both Obama and McCain for wanting to reach the most people possible with their eventual debates.

* An interesting piece on the rise of charter schools in post-Katrina New Orleans.

* Also at reason, a libertarian roundtable on global warming and what to do. I have a largish global warming post in my head that I’ll get out at some point in life.

* A very valid parallel between 2000 and 2008.

* This person wants to replace Sununu. And now you know why I want to volunteer for him.

That’s all for now. Depending on what comes around overnight, maybe another one in the afternoon will swing around.

* The big news of yesterday is the California Supreme Court affirming same-sex marriage. While I’m in favor of gay marriage (as well as plural and whatever other kinds of consenting marriages one can conjure up), and I say this without having read the entire piece nor having read any detailed analysis as of yet, I still wonder if the use of the Courts to force this through is ultimately dragging down the acceptance of this sort of thing or not. Even if the legal reasoning is sound, there’s a good sized subset that will never truly accept such a ruling and cry “judicial activism!” while causing an extreme pushback, which we’re likely to see in California if and when the Constitutional Amendment to ban the marriages lands on the ballot. Without even getting into the way it changes the electoral landscape (Obama’s only a +7 against McCain in the most recent SurveyUSA poll in California from a month ago), I’m just wondering if the Court challenges are ultimately the wrong tactic.

* A couple via Melvin today, the first about a 95 year old man who’s garbage wasn’t picked up for 2 weeks in England. Why? A ketchup bottle and coffee jar were placed in the incorrect bucket for recycling.

* Second, why does CNN assume a recession in its exit polling?

* ThinkProgress - not smarter than a fifth grader.

* Live by McCain, die by McCain. Another week over, another pretty interesting and positive speech by McCain that offsets previous speeches early in the week that seemed designed to tweak the right. If Obama wasn’t such a weak candidate, I’d be more concerned.

* Speaking of McCain, agree with him or not - this is some fairly solid thought behind foriegn policy and American intervention. It’s apparent he has thought these issues through, and should, if critics stay smart, put to rest any idea that McCain will continue the perception (and I use that word specifically) of Bush’s “cavalier” policy.

* A lot’s being said about Bush’s speech to the Knesset in Israel, and whether it was a shot at Obama (personal opinion? Most likely). The point that a lot of people seem to be missing is that, even beyond Obama’s ridiculous foriegn policy (a record he’s trying to run from), Obama is likely to have a serious Israel problem in the general election. That it hasn’t been highlighted by now is somewhat surprising to me, because there have been more than an isolated instance or so: there’s the “understanding” as to why Hamas would endorse him - and a rather tone deaf “understanding” at that, the belief by some that he may be hiding some thoughts on the Israel/Palestine situation (”I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front,” Obama’s advisor being in regular contact with Hamas, McPeak, Samantha Power - there’s a lot here. I’m not sure how much it will effect Obama long term, but I’m surprised we haven’t seen any significant discussion of it. Well, only somewhat surprised - that would come with the expectation that the media is doing its job.

* If you’re into this stuff, some crazy numbers about video game console sales during the month of April. Keep in mind - this includes Grand Theft Auto IV and Mario Kart Wii.

* Finally, a compilation of Manny Being Manny.

* This piece on a self-selected survey on what kids are reading kind of irritated me a bit. Granted, the article does note that many of the books that are listed are due to assignment, but this self-congratulatory praise of the list by the same educators who don’t want to deviate from what they know and instead widely push the same books that only resonate with a subset of kids is discouraging to me. Furthermore, they even cite the decline in the amount of books read per year, and fail to note any possible correlations between the often-dated, unrelatable, and typically preachy fare that they assign as opposed to some of the more interesting writing available, many of which share similar values and information while actually relating, either in character or style, to the kids who are reading them. The disconnect is absolutely incredible to me. There’s a longer rant about books and assignments and “classics” and whatnot that isn’t really good for right now.

* Jonah Goldberg on the Tuskegee experiments, separating the myths from the reality. I learned something here.

* I’m pretty sick of our marijuana laws. This has to be a new low. It was prescribed, you morons!

* New Zealand’s laws are so insane that it’s illegal to buy Grand Theft Auto IV for your child. As bad as it gets here…

* Heh.

* CNN’s decided that the news isn’t really important anymore. In the tank, indeed.

* I think I’m gonna throw up.

Prediction for today? Clinton by more than 5 in Indiana, Obama by no more than 7 in North Carolina. I wouldn’t be shocked to see Clinton pull within 5 in North Carolina, but there are a lot of African American voters in that primary, and I assume they’ll continue to break in favor of Obama the way they have.

While dealing with wisdom tooth drama…

* Pennsylvania forces the Democratic primary to keep going another month, surprise surprise. Most telling stat from the exit polls? One in four Clinton voters would decline to vote for Obama if he’s the nominee, many switching to McCain. I’m sure that number will decline if Obama’s the nominee and the general campaign begins, but in a closely contested matchup, a 3% swing in either direction would make a huge difference.

* Someone’ll have to explain to the Truthers that Al Queda is working for the United States government. Or Mossad. Or something.

That’s all I’ve got today, actually. Slow day, I suppose, post-Pennsylvania…

Ignoring the fingergate controversy because someone like Obama could never stoop to that level…

* Not that I’m one for pimping my own work, but my ideology post from this morning (LJ link might help some newcomers understand where I’m coming from, generally speaking.

* So, Pelosi took communion at the Papal mass today, even though the Pope has essentially said that pro-abortion types shouldn’t take communion. I mean, yeah, there’s more than a little arrogance to defy the Pope when he’s standing right there, but this is also a great example of the American (and perhaps Western) mindset when it comes to religion. I suppose it’s annoying to no one but the religious and me, though.

* I can’t decide what’s better: A college masculinist group, or the fact that their charter has a detailed section regarding calling Shenanigans.

* Interesting story about the sinking of the Titanic, with new scholarship.

* The Wall Street Journal pretty much eviscerates Obama on the capital gains issue:

As the nearby chart shows, when the tax rate has risen over the past half century, capital gains realizations have fallen and along with them tax revenue. The most recent such episode was in the early 1990s, when Mr. Obama was old enough to be paying attention. That’s one reason Jack Kennedy proposed cutting the capital gains rate. And it’s one reason Bill Clinton went along with a rate cut to 20% from 28% in 1997.

Either the young Illinois Senator is ignorant of this revenue data, or he doesn’t really care because he’s a true income redistributionist who prefers high tax rates as a matter of ideological dogma regardless of the revenue consequences. Neither one is a recommendation for President.

It also covers how Obama is either outright lying or is generally unserious about his pledge to not raise taxes for people under a certain income threshold. One of the best pieces of mainstream opinion journalism I’ve seen about Obama yet.

* Elephant 6 band The Minders are no more. I never got to see them, either - a shame.

* FiveThirtyEight discusses the recent SurveyUSA numbers for Obama v. McCain. This is why Obama’s getting hurt by issues like Wright - even though they don’t show up in the Democratic numbers (which is really a scary concept in itself), they do head to head:

As you can see, Obama’s win percentage against John McCain has declined to its lowest ever number, 41.4%, which leaves him essentially tied with Hillary Clinton, who is presently at 40.2%. When we began this project, the polls indicated that Obama was at a hair over 60% to win an election against John McCain; that number has now fallen by more than 20 points.

That’s a 20 point swing in this indicator since the beginning of March - the Wright issue reared its ugly head midway through March. Also, this SurveyUSA poll was taken before the whole “bitter” controversy came about, and before the debate earlier this week. It’ll be interesting to see how this works out.

* An interesting study suggests that it’s cheaper to treat an illness than prevent it. I.E., one in four high cholesterol, overweight people will have a heart attack, but we treat them all the same preventatively. It’s an interesting study in the context of the health care debate, which focuses so much on preventative care.

Yay weekend!

I’ve had a pile of smaller posts that I can’t expand upon much further, so an omnibus might be better. Yeah.

1) If there’s anything that Adam’s rabble-rousing has positively done as of late, it’s gotten me to think a little more about ideology, and my personal positions on the matter. I’ve spent some time on my voting practices, but it doesn’t really address myself at all.

I’ve kind of fashioned myself a Goldwaterian conservative for lack of a better term - after all, he’s a pretty stand-up figure, people generally know who he is, and it’s a good contrast from neoconservatism or Bush-style big-government conservatism. The problem with that is that it’s a little vague and a little inaccurate. After all, the idea of Goldwater is one of small government conservatism, and has achieved a somewhat Obama-ish tone in where his words have gotten somewhat construed to mean whatever people want them to as opposed to what they’re actually saying. Goldwater was anti-religion in government! Goldwater was a warmonger! Etc etc.

As I’ve not been shy about, I spent some good time with the Libertarian Party shortly after becoming voting age until shortly after 11 September. A lot of those ideals I still connect with - strong preference for individual rights, weak centralized power, minimal regulatory influence. On the other hand, there’s a lot that I wasn’t in favor of, such as the full privatization across the boards (I’m generally in favor of public schooling, but on a local level, for an example), and the blowback-style excuses trotted out following the attacks and the bizarre notion that going after bin Laden was the wrong idea.

Either way, I think I may have found a term that better matches my ideological bent at this point: Neolibertarianism. Essentially, for me, it takes the best parts of libertarianism (localized control, a focus on liberty) while pushing for a more realistic foriegn policy (the thing that turned me off from the Libertarian Party to begin with). While neoconservatism has gotten a bad rap over the last few years (truly more due to the characters involved and a misunderstanding of the basic ideology rather than the actual things it stands for), I think this simply better fits my point of view, and, in its limited appeal, appears to allow for a wide range of beliefs and a better dialogue about appropriateness as compared to the more monolithic libertarian ideals. More on the concept here and here.

2) The whole FDLS raid thing has left me super-conflicted, and it’s interesting that it comes so close to the 15th anniversary of the Branch Davadian raids by the FBI. The whole FDLS situation is obviously more complicated than the David Koresh-thinks-he’s-Jesus one, but I can’t help but thinking back a bit when news of the FDLS raid came out.

While I consider the Clinton impeachment my first real political awakening, watching the Waco situation unfold on CNN live as it happened was probably my news-event awakening, as I didn’t really understand what was going on, but, hey, the Branch Davidians were a cult and the government’s here to help, right? Obviously, as time has worn on, the “facts,” as they were, have become much more clear, and I still think that the raid itself is one of the more shameful periods of this nation’s post-civil-rights-era history, especially considering how the government could of handled this.

So bringing this back around a bit, my natural skepticism is tempered by knowing how problematic the FDLS sect of Mormonism is, and the further fine line between a firm tolerance for religious freedom and an equally firm intolerance of child abuse and forced marriage - especially the apparent intersection thereof. I’m immensely thankful that there was no significant violence to speak of in this situation, but still…

I mean, there’s very good evidence to suggest the entire Branch Davidian thing could have been avoided, even if Koresh was an abusive madman, and the treatment of the FDLS situation seems to at least be inadvertantly cognizant of this. At the same time, the Mormons are arguably one of the most persecuted religious groups in American history, forcing much of this sort of thing underground. Decades of religious persecution causes distrust of the government, and then the government acts when they’re acting outside of what the government considers okay? I’m not entirely comfortable with that.

The facts are these - forced child marriage is wrong, wrong,wrong, but so is not giving broad allowance to religious groups. The FDLS crossed a significant line, but how much of that crossing has to do with a response to the type of issues they’ve faced from their fellow countrymen and government? I don’t know, and it’s a tough place to sit. Some other posts that kind of cover my problems with this are here and here.

3) Interestingly to no one, I’m sure, the common theme that’s been going through my head is a general distrust of government in general. It’s why I’m especially down on an Obama presidency, it’s why I generally like New Hampshire, it’s why I’m attracted to libertarian-style philosophy and uncomfortable with the FDLS raid. Cass Sunstein had an excellent post at The Volokh Conspiracy about this concept that’s worth highlighting a bit.

The concept that resonated the most with me is the idea of libertarian paternalism - that, in the existence of rules, the default should be the choice that does the most for what is called the “choice environment.” The examples Sunstein uses are things like allowing for malpractice insurance waivers to help lower costs and create a contract between patient and doctor - things that allow for individual choice and reasoning as opposed to the one-size-fits-all regulatory structure in place. It allows for more flexibility and specificity that the current structure simply cannot provide.

This conceptualization is ultimately what confuses me about liberalism in general - the idea that individuals will usually have a better idea as to what works best in their situations seems like a big heaping pile of common sense to me, and yet the answer from the left - and ultimately from the government in general, regardless of whether it’s the left or “the right” in power - ends up being exactly the opposite of that. Harken back to the malpractice waiver concept - if health care costs are so high right now, talk about an easy way to reduce costs by contractually creating the scenarios that would reduce the ways to encourage litigation. I mean, my wife spent 4 hours in the ER with a gallbladder attack and it never dawned on any of the doctors to perform an ultrasound, and we could theoretically waste everyone’s time with a lawsuit and perhaps even win - how is that really, truly, right?

Yesterday, a discussion ensued regarding my general distrust of law enforcement, and it’s the same deal here - what reason do I ultimately have to trust people who are not working for my best interests, but instead working for the interests of people who are arbitrarily deciding what is right for everyone regardless of the circumstances surrounding it? This same sort of nannying pervades law enforcement, smoking bans, and even the forms of religious persecution we see in the United States in the last 20 years. It seems so counterintuitive to promote these things, and yet the most popular Democratic candidate at this point seems hell bent on expanding that sort of state, and to what ends? I don’t get it, folks, I really don’t.

* Not surprisingly, Obama’s “bitter” statement isn’t dying out. It’s quickly becoming a larger problem for him, and mostly due to his own statements on the matter, now attacking Clinton and McCain rather than admitting he was completely off base. Lance touched on the initial issues with the statement better than I could (short answer: focusing on the “bitter” aspect isn’t the problem), but it really continues to feed into a wider meme that Obama (and perhaps Democrats as a general group) are, at best, out of touch with who they’re trying to help, and at worst unable to comprehend anything that isn’t within their worldview. Obama didn’t see the problem with Wright, and he doesn’t see why people are upset when he says people value their rights or beliefs not due to thought or community, but rather due to a reaction to their lot in life. It’s a really negative view of people.

The worst part is that Obama’s not hurting in the polls with Democrats on this. He’s unlikely to hurt himself any worse in Pennsylvania against Clinton (a state he was unlikely to win anyway), and that says a lot about the Democratic electorate and about Obama in general - is it that these sorts of statements aren’t controversial to them because it’s the only reason they can comprehend some of these positions?

I’m generalizing here, I know, but as wrong as I believe many liberal positions to be, I know I don’t see it as some sort of position borne out of bitterness or resentment, and most mainstream conservatives don’t buy into that sort of rhetoric either (although it does exist on the more radical areas). Imagine if John McCain came out today and said that Democrats were in favor of national health care and abortion rights because they were bitter, clinging to these issues in response to their own life events? He’d be absolutely savaged by everyone involved. But, for whatever reason, it’s apparently okay and “in touch” to say that about religion and guns. Okay then.

I’ve not been more bullish on the ability of McCain to win the Presidency as I am this week. If McCain actually goes on the attack, Obama’s going to have to find a way to talk himself out of this, and he’s already whiffed big time once.

* Along the same notes, a piece at Politico notches a couple more instances of Obama being “in touch.” My favorite parts? That Obama feels he “understand[s] the world better…than John McCain” and that he feels that he’s “still almost normal.” If his appeal is that he’s like you or I, and he’s this completely out of touch right now, where is he going to be in a year?

* QandO on the progressive backlash on Obama.

* More great energy news, this time out of Japan.

* I’m not going to lie - it’s either McCain or Bob Barr for me.

* Most fascinating story of the day - Stalin’s body double.

* Radley Balko at Reason on the Jefferson Memorial arrests. The memorial is open 24 hours a day, so about 20 people decided to have a 10 minute dance party. Cops showed up, arrested one person, and dispersed the crowd. Why? Who knows.

* Judicial Watch is trying to get Hillary Clinton in trouble for the Elton John concert, which may be an FEC violation. Our campaign laws are insane.

* Finally, a great blog post compendium on the rich getting richer, poor getting poorer canard. Someday this information will become the common knowledge as opposed to what is currently out there.

You know you read too many blogs when you’re without internet access from Friday afternoon -> Sunday afternoon, and you have 580 unread posts in your Google Reader. Let’s see if we can’t knock some of them off.

* Did I post this last week? Maybe I did, but it’s worth posting again: this is awesome. A cell phone that doesn’t work via voice.

* Do ankles really exist? Doctors in Texas can’t agree. Ah, licensing squabbles…

* If Jonah Goldberg wrote as intelligently as he did in Liberal Fascism, I’d read him more often. His piece this week on the stark realities of the New Deal is one of those good pieces that will likely get overlooked. There’s no rational reason why it took me until an upper-level college history class to learn that there was even a rational alternative view on the New Deal, let alone the economic facts behind it. If we taught that sort of information in high school, it would do wonders.

* Deval Patrick made a pretty big deal about the casino legislation - one of the few things he’s been up to that I’ve thought was a good idea up to this point. Too bad he was working on his book deal in New York when the bill was being voted on. Way to push those votes, Deval. Good job.

* I learned something new today: Most United States citizens get their water from public works/governments, most United Kingdom citizens get it from private companies. Pretty backwards if you think about it - I never knew it was that widespread here, or that private there.

* Forget those White Sox frauds, read up on how the Red Sox are built for the long haul. Happy opening week!

* I love the “Al Gore riding in on a white stallion and rescuing the Democratic Party during the convention” fantasies. The reality is that he’s not going to run, and the perception is that Gore is even further left than Obama’s is.

* More about where the two Democratic candidates stand v. McCain. It’s still early when we don’t know who the Democrat is, but this is where Obama’s hurting the most following the Wright debacle - he may be able to recover the hard left (if he ever lost them to begin with), but the center is where his bread and butter was supposed to be in terms of viability, and that’s no longer a given. Regardless, a LOT can change in 6 months.

* I don’t watch Fox News. I don’t have any standard feeling as to what they stand for, whether they’re actually conservative or just further right than their cable competition. I did see Outfoxed and found it to be ridiculous. With that said, MoveOn demonstrating against Fox News? Really? Apparently, they think the mainstream media is getting its talking points from Fox, and that’s apparently bad. Isn’t the left also in favor of reinstating the fairness doctrine? How do these two things compute? I’m glad MoveOn’s relevance is continuing to disappear.

* Coming soon: WiiGuyver, where you use your Wiimote to diffuse bombs. This is actually for real - the US military is using rigged Wiimotes to help diffuse land mines. How funny is that?

* This past weekend was “Earth Hour,” where some people, groups, businesses, and even governments turned the lights out for an hour for yet another statement about climate change that only echoed amongst those who care. Google took part, turning their homepage black. The irony? It uses more energy for a monitor to display black than it does to display white. Yeah yeah, “awareness” and all that jazz, but come on.

* Barack Obama says his foriegn policy is a “return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush’s father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan…” So let me get this straight - Bush 41 made it so we had to spend 12 extra years bombing Iraq while we bent over backwards for the UN, Reagan spent a great deal of time funding contras and other undesirables in an attempt to disrupt various events, and JFK botched the Bay of Pigs so badly that it lead to a missile crisis that left the USSR in better condition defensively than it was when it started two weeks earlier. This is the type of foriegn policy he’s considering “realistic” and wants to return to, while deriding the alleged “naive ways that have caused us so much damage in our reputation around the world?” Barack Obama has said some ridiculous things on the campaign trail so far, but this takes the cake.

That’s enough for today. More tomorrow.

* The Wright story doesn’t want to seem to go away, even though I’d kind of wish it would at this point. The downside of the rapid-fire news cycle we’re in is that if a story persists for a week, it feels like an eternity. First, Jonah Goldberg had some good words that I liked regarding a comparison between Obama’s speech Tuesday and Romney’s speech. Michael Goodwin at thr New York Daily News had a great piece on the issues of doubt the Wright flap creates around Obama. Finally, I’ve been trying to cut back on my cursing on this blog, but there’s really no better way to put it: Andrew Sullivan is an asshole.

* Greatest. Case. Name. Ever.

* I’m hearing nothing but good news regarding the Supreme Court case about the Washington, DC gun ban. Some good coverage: Reason on some highlights, and, for those inclined, the oral arguments. I feel like the only non-lawyer utterly fascinated by these, but hey.

* A pretty bad gaffe by Obama: his grandmother as a “typical white person.” You’ll recall that his white grandmother was portrayed in his speech on Tuesday as someone who had some racially insensitive thoughts. Yeah, I’ll give Obama the benefit of the doubt here, but if he’s trying to convince people that he doesn’t agree with Wright, this isn’t going to help.

* I voted for Frank Guinta for mayor, and enthusiastically at that, but this is a bit ridiculous. The anti-drug sentiment in this country has got to end, and this is the type of ridiculousness that causes problems.

* On the bright side, I live in the safest state in the United States (no thanks to our current leadership), and I’m proud of our northern neighbors for fighting the good fight.

* Price-gouging laws are stupid. This is stupid - if you don’t want to spend the extra cash on gas, drive down the street.

* Apparently, your state is safer if your government does the majority of parenting for you. I love surveys like this.

* Hidden costs in our ethanol push. My father-in-law sent along a message in the theme of “we’re the only nation that burns its food away.” I’m not sure how significantly true that is, but the fact that we do it at all is kind of pathetic.

* Another roadblock in the establishment of an .xxx domain. This seems like such a no-brainer to me…

* Finally, I’m not one for “omg that band sold out” stuff, but the redoing of the Black Kids song “I’m Not Gonna Teach Your Boyfriend How to Dance With You” is kind of crappy. The original version had a lot of messy charm to it, but this sounds almost overly polished. The song is, thankfully, still awesome, but there’s something to be said about a little less polish.

* The arrogance of Barack Obama. I’m not as bothered by this as Fournier is, or as many bloggers appear to be. What does throw me is that Obama is arrogant and it doesn’t bother his supporters - wasn’t the arrogance of George W. Bush a big problem? Is it just that you like what Obama’s arrogant about that it’s okay?

* Barack Obama is a politician. Congressional Quarterly’s election blog, Ground Game, covers what is obvious, but misses the fact that Obama presents himself as not-a-politician. That’s where the problem sits.

* I expect this to be the political meme of the summer: “What’s wrong with the beer we got?!” Must be heard to be believed, skip ahead to a little after 5:30 to get the juicy stuff. Short story? Alabama debates allowing an increase in the alcohol content of beer, which would expand the beer market and provide some more options, and one politician takes some offense to it.

* Have i mentioned lately how glad I am to not live in Massachusetts anymore? The Mass legislature is going to consider a bill to make it illegal to sell M/AO rated games to minors. Glad you got that budget situation worked out there.

* McCain is not only against Universal Health Care, but makes a fairly reasoned approach about the issue:

“Well, I think that’s one of the big differences we have about the role of government. If you think that the government should mandate anything to the American people than besides a safety net, and I don’t view it as a safety net. I view Medicare and Medicaid as a safety net,” McCain said. “But to mandate that all Americans are required to do something then that’s just not within the fundamental philosophy that I have about the role of government in America.”

While I’m not generally a fan of the “safety net,” that’s probably the best argument anyone could put out there in the current climate. Cheers to you, Sen. McCain.

* A lot of the spin on this one has been about how ridiculous Comcast is, but I happen to think they have a point in their lawsuit against the FCC challenging the “30% rule” which disallows the cable carrier from having more than 30% of the market. Not only does such a rule not appear to apply to groups like AT&T, but all it’s going to do is screw the current Comcast customers - without allowing Comcast to grow, it means that 100% of any future improvements to the system or cost increases are stuck on current customers rather than Comcast being able to grow their way out of it. While the FCC could care less about exclusive cable carrier contracts with municipalities, this is a very bizarre position to take.

* I have a severe problem with the use of minors in any politicking, especially very young ones. So as if this video wasn’t creepy enough, the addition of a bunch of kids parroting talking points their parents fed to them is really disturbing and disgusting to me. Can we make an agreement to, you know, NOT do this?

* Zogby noting that Nader’s making some progress. Good thing Zogby’s typically pretty far off these days, eh?

* A question from National Review: if it was so important for Senate Democrats to push a resolution condemning Presidential candidates speaking at Bob Jones University, why the reluctance on Obama/Wright now?

* China’s been especially brutal with Tibet over the last week. It’s a damn good thing that the US State Department removed them from the Human Rights Violators list days earlier, eh?. Moronic.

* Walter Williams had a scathing op-ed regarding ethanol over the weekend. The money shot: “If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil?”

* A few reactions to the Obama speech I found interesting. I don’t endorse them, but they’re a different reaction from my own: National Review, Reason.

* One word for Jim Cramer: Ouch. I have no real input on the Bear Sterns issue - whatever is going to happen is going to happen, we’re much better set up and diversified as a nation to handle it, though.

* Today, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the Washington, DC gun ban. I’m using the newly adopted Elmore Rule on this one - if you want something good to come of something that might work out very well, pretend it’s not happening. So instead, let’s get excited about The Supremes taking on an FCC case!

* Michael Stipe is gay. I highlight this not because it’s news, but more to laugh at the fact that it’s being treated as news even though we’ve all known it since the early 1990s.

* Thomas Sowell on Obama. This was posted pre-speech, but it’s still resonant.

* Fred Thompson to debate John Edwards. I so hope this gets televised or ends up on the web. Thompson would have made a great candidate for President, IMO.

* An interesting set of musings on why the “peace movement” has failed.

* Finally, humorous link of the day: Ludacris’s Rap Map, showing where his women at according to his song “Area Codes.”

I think that’s enough.

* In terms of having a speech that he had to make, I generally think he pulled it off. I haven’t seen the speech, only read it, so I’d imagine Obama’s general delivery helped things considerably. It’s not a perfect speech, and I don’t consider it any more inspiring or amazing or anything like that than any of his other speeches, but it’s really a good speech overall, and I don’t feel the need to hesitate much in saying it.

* Problem elements: it turns out that he was lying about whether he witnessed the statements first hand, which could bite him in the rear end if played properly. Rather than sticking to a universality theme, he made some hits on Ferraro and “[T]alk show hosts and conservative commentators” that I thought were more than a little inappropriate, but will likely be glossed over in the long run. The campaigning toward the end wasn’t really useful - if you’re trying to convince people that you’re not a crazy racist crank like your pastor, health care and jobs aren’t really on people’s minds. The final anecdote about Ashley felt really out of place for me, especially how it ended. I couldn’t figure out the point, except that maybe he’s trying to demonstrate how a young white girl who supports a black Presidential candidate who lives post-civil rights legislation was able to convince an elderly black man to come on board? I dunno, but it didn’t work for me.

* If racial exclusion is one of the problems, did this speech work on an inclusionary basis? Thankfully, he didn’t get too preachy about it (my number one fear going in), but the segment about Trinity, where the “services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear…” was a bit odd. I know what the point was - it was a teachable moment for Obama, and shedding some light may have been beneficiary, but it does come across as a little condescending. We’ve all seen movies, we know that the black church is not all full of stand-sit-stand-sit-kneel-stand-sit reverent obedience to the pastor, but more of a larger experience. I remember being personally jealous of that in grade school and high school. But that was never the problem, either - the energy and enthusiasm of the congregation during their time in church was never at issue as much as the energy and enthusiasm for Wright’s comments. Obama seems to recognize that to a point, but, in trying to help the majority understand what the minority experiences, he fails to understand exactly what it is about the minority experiences in this episode that makes the majority at best uncomfortable and at worst outraged.

Toward the end, he gets very empathetic about the entire thing: “a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch.” I’ll forgive him the “white privilege” meme and drill down to the broader problem - on one hand, he says “Yeah, I get it - there’s some anger on the majority side, too, and I think it can be justified,” but then turns around with how he feels those issues “affected the political landscape.” By attaching the views of the minority - in this case, those who disliked things like welfare or affirmative action because of the benefits to minorities - to those of the majority - who often had policy-based (welfare is not a good use of taxpayer money, it has questionable results) or equality-based (affirmative action fights inequality with inequality) views - it turns the entire statement into one that’s only better than Wright’s in terms of tone. I’m positive that it was an inadvertent action, without a doubt, but to spend any number of minutes on a speech trying to explain the minority position only to then try and make a different, more disturbing, minority position larger than it is may end up negating the broader message in some circles.

* Overall, though, I was surprisingly impressed. He could have gone an entirely different direction, and largely didn’t. He refrained from throwing Wright under the bus, which is fairly noble in a way even if I think he’d be better off cutting ties. He didn’t prey on some of the more negative and unfair criticisms that have been levied to this point, and he could have. He largely kept the entire speech positive and on-topic, which is hard to do when talking race these days. While I can obviously go on and on about the parts I don’t agree with, the simple fact remains that I think he pulled off the speech he had to pull off, and there’s no faulting him in that, IMO. My only hope at this point is that the bleeding kind of stops a bit - it’s apparent that he’s addressed this comptently, so let’s move back to the point that we can’t afford his agenda or something.

Today, Barack Obama’s slated to make a speech on race, religion, etc. It’s an interesting situation Obama’s put himself in with this - on one hand, it’s a speech he generally has to make, as the “bury it on a Friday and hope the media ignores it enough where the whole thing passes for now” didn’t work all that well, and daily tracking polls have not been favorable toward Obama since the story hit the mainstream late Thursday. In a way, he’s stuck in a political corner with no way out except this.

The speech can’t be anything but problematic, however - granted, if there’s anyone in politics today who can pull off the rhetorical flourish necessary to convince people of what they need to hear regarding this whole Wright flap, it’s Barack Obama, but the stark problem is that Obama doesn’t seem to get what the problem is:

“I am going to be talking about not just Reverend Wright, but just the larger issue of race in this campaign, which has ramped up over the last couple of weeks,” Obama told reporters after a town hall meeting here. According to aides, he was up until 3 a.m. Monday working on his remarks.

…

“The statements that were the source of controversy from Reverend Wright were wrong, and I strongly condemn them,” the Illinois senator reiterated today. However, Obama added, “I think the caricature that is being painted of him is not accurate. And so part of what I’ll do tomorrow is to talk a little bit about how some of these issues are perceived from within the black church community, for example, which I think views this very differently.”

Ignore for the moment that he’s still sticking with the “statements that were the source of controversy line” and let’s breakthis down simply: Obama feels that this is ultimately not a problem with Wright (although, now that he’s been pressed on it a bit, it’s kind of a problem), but that it’s more of a racial and religious community misunderstanding.

Now, on the surface, you know, that might be true: it’s been put out there that Wright probably isn’t that controversial in comparison to some others in his position, for instance, It may not necessarily be Obama’s fault on all counts on that one, especially if (and I can’t find the link on this currently) it’s actually true that Obama’s reasoning for joining this Church was more to better connect with the community he was working with. But the surface isn’t what’s persisting in this story.

1) Obama’s lost the trust of a lot of people. I can see a few eyes rolling on this one, but this is important to note - it’s very hard for Obama to position himself the way he has been when he’s got this albatross around his neck. That people can’t see through his policies or rhetoric is one thing, but having a guy who says we deserved 9/11 on your advisory council isn’t going to fly with undecided voters, frankly. It takes the shine off the whole image, and that’s not one you can easily recover from.

2) People’s problem with this isn’t race. Well, okay, to be fair, SOME people see it as a race problem, but the stories I’m reading are not looking at it from a race angle, or even a religious angle - they see it quite simply as the ravings of a non-mainstream pastor making remarks that are usually relegated to the lunatic fringe. Barack Obama decided that, not only did this guy with the lunatic fringe commentary inspire him (because we all know he likely heard it at some point over the last 20 years), but he was influential enough to be a political adviser and serve on his campaign. When it comes down to an undecided voter pulling the lever, a guy who occasionally panders to the extreme religious elements is still going to be superior to the guy who’s taking those loons and taking their advice…

3) …which leads to the third problem, the lack of understanding of context. I see this get compared to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et al. I had one person ask me about this in context to the Ron Paul Newsletters. The difference with the former is that Falwell and Robertson aren’t taken seriously by anyone except their core constituencies, a very small but vocal minority that occasionally get a hearing from mainstream candidates but have little in the way of sway with anyone on the right other than themselves, compared to Wright’s role in the Obama campaign. Furthermore, it’s widely understood that Falwell and Robertson aren’t taken seriously by a whole lot of people - even the most religious person you know probably doesn’t think Hurricane Katrina was God’s retribution for allowing gays to marry, while we’re supposed to understand that Wright’s statements are somewhat moderate in comparison to some other preachers? Really?

The Ron Paul Newsletter controversy is probably closer to this situation, except that Ron Paul was never going to win the nomination and more people were voting for him either because of his stance on the war or as part of the broader “revolution” rather than actually thinking he had a chance in hell of sniffing the Presidency. That certainly doesn’t excuse him from associating with the Lew Rockwells and Alex Joneses of the world, but no one was assuming they’d play a role in his never-gonna-happen Presidency either. But Wright?

At the core of it, it comes back to what I posted about yesterday - judgment. Obama, for the moment, is not showing that he’s really one to pass his own judgment test. Will his speech today change that if he starts in on trying to lecture people about race and black churches and how we should simply let statements like that go because of their own experiences? Maybe for the Obama true believers, but people don’t want to hear how Wright may be justified (mainly because they know it generally isn’t true), they want to hear Barack Obama say that he was completely wrong and those sort of statements aren’t tolerable under any circumstances. If he does that, I’ll frankly be shocked because direct statements that may bother a constituency he wants to win over aren’t Obama’s style.

I’m looking forward to reading the speech, in any regard. It’ll be a defining moment of this campaign, I just hope for the right reasons.

EDIT: Full text of the speech here, thoughts to come.

* An interesting report from the Washington Timesabout some minor backlash NPR recieved for its “Conversations With Conservatives” series at the end of February.

* Not shockingly, Obama’s talking point that some CEOs make more in 10 minutes than the average worker does in a year is, with one to three exceptions depending on which metric you use, completely false. This is why populism is dangerous - it makes the mistake of either assuming anecdote as the clear reality (see: every John Edwards speech ever, Michelle Obama) or having to purposefully distort reality to make what may have otherwise been a valid, debatable point about a specific issue.

* Obama on the war. In a way, it does a good job explaining why Obama’s current Iraq strategy is so schizophrenic.

* Someone needs to reeducate the Associated Press regarding fair use principles. I think my favorite part is the probable concurrent contradiction by the organization.

* Kos blogger “on strike” because Daily Kos is apparently in the tank for Obama or something. It’s funny - the Republicans had a more diverse slate of candidates, more concern about the future of their party and ideology, and yet largely avoided this sort of infighting.

* Howie Carr’s yearly check-in with politicians in Massachusetts who call for higher taxes was published this week. One of the quirks in Massachusetts’s tax system is that the standard income tax rate is 5.3%. It should be 5% per a citizen vote, but Massachusetts politicians don’t care about Massachusetts residents. ANYWAY, at some point, an optional 5.8% rate was instituted - if you would like to pay the higher rate, the opportunity is there. Not surprisingly, very few people do pay the higher optional rate, including those who say that the state’s finances are in disarray and that higher taxes are needed. I love it.

* A minor follow-up to the Obama/Wright thing - while this was meant to apply to the Rezko situation (hardly finished, by the way), it applies here, too: Obama says that, “In a dangerous world, it’s judgment that matters.” If his “judgment” is to not only stick with this preacher for as long as he did, but also a) talk about possibly having to distance himself from Wright, only b) waiting until the mainstream press gets ahold of it, what does this say about Obama’s judgment? This is his standard, after all.

* More LiveJournal nonsense: censoring interests. Good times, SUP, really.

TGIF indeed.

* From Southern Appeal, McCain has his own preacher problem - John Hagee is a bigoted, offensive mess of a human being, but since his ire is toward the Catholic Church, no one seems to care much - surprise surprise. Still, McCain shows the right way to distance yourself from an offensive minister you’re close to: “I categorically reject it, and I repudiate it. And we can’t have that in this campaign. We’re trying to unite the country. We’re uniting the country, not dividing it.” Compare that statement with Obama’s campaign statements on Rev. Wright - “Sen. Obama has said before that he profoundly disagrees with some of the statements and positions of Rev. Wright… Sen. Obama deplores divisive statements, whether they come from his supporters, the supporters of his opponent, talk radio or anywhere else.’’ This isn’t even Obama coming out and saying it, but having one of his campaign people make the statement for him. When Obama has the opportunity to repudiate the statements, he passes it off as a guy “on the brink of retirement” and can’t write him off completely. This is not good for Obama, and not good in a general election race the longer this simmers. Melvin Udall said it best in the comments earlier today:

Obama is an inhumanly charismatic man who is preaching a message of hope and change. Yet the two people closest to him in the world by his own admission, his wife and pastor, are angry, bitter, divisive, resentful, America hating, and certainly the latter, racist. If the two people closest to this man, who preaches hope and change, spread the message they’re spreading, this man shouldn’t be made leader of anything. He either can’t influence those closest to him with his message of optimism, or his message is entirely a fabrication.

* The Volohk Conspiracy on whether Article V makes it too hard to amend the Constitution. Uh, wasn’t that the point?

* An interesting story on the BBC’s blasphemy guidelines.

* An ahead-of-its-time astronomical calendar. Built between 150-100 B.C., the technology was better than anything that would be developed for more than a thousand years, including some parts that weren’t developed in the Western world until the 1700s. Absolutely incredible stuff.

* From Reason, random drug testing for high school athletes shot down due to a stronger-than-the-federal-government privacy law. Nice.

* The top 10 most edible Pokemon.

* More problematic earmarks for Obama. Remember, the problem isn’t the earmarking, it’s that Obama claims to be above all of this, not be influenced by lobbyists, and be different from the Same Old Washington Politics. The more we learn, the more it becomes evident that Obama is one of the firmest examples we have of being more of the same.

* This also ties into comments from this morning: Tom Coburn (writing in National Review) on the Founding Fathers and earmarks:

* The Democrats: for strengthening the middle class except when it’s time to act. Also, thanks for that tax increase, guys. There’s still time to reverse it, thankfully.

* This is kind of cool - a series of images from Enchanted alongside the Disney animated films that inspired the scenes.

* Shame on you, Sen. Gregg.

* Radley Balko reports on the ups and downs of RateMyCop.com. And then people wonder why I don’t trust the police. Also from Balko, MADDness.

* I love this - during the marathon voting session yesterday, Sen. Wayne Allard, Republican from Colorado, essentially put Barack Obama’s campaign platform up for vote. The result? Soundly defeated, including a nay vote from Obama himself. Pretty hilarious.

Have a lovely weekend.

* Continuing with the sweet, sweet schadenfreude of the Spitzer crash, here’s a contrast between Keith Olbermann’s reaction to the New York Times non-story regarding John McCain and the lobbyist and Elliott Spitzer (Liz, you wanted to know why I’m not an Olbermann fan, here’s an example), and, just to show how detached some people are, FireDogLake being convinced that it’s just another Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Riiiiight.

* David Freddoso at National Review talks more about the wage stagnation myth.

* It only took four years, but the New York Times finally starts asking some questions about Obama.

* Even though it’s from the Competitive Enterprise Institute - a group I’m not really huge on and one most of you would likely discount immediately - this list of the five dumbest product bans is interesting.

* We kept hearing over and over in 2000 and 2004 about preachers shilling for Bush from the pulpit and the tax ramifications. Why is Obama getting a free pass on this? The American Spectator has another piece on how Obama may have screwed one of his churches. I’ll say it again - our campaign laws are moronic, as are our tax laws. Fix them so we don’t have to worry about this sort of nonsense.

* I subscribed to The American Conservative for a while, but they’re pretty damn isolationist and tend to bring out the worst in American conservatism - then again, Pat Buchanan runs it, so why are we shocked? Then again, they are one of the few publications to present Barack Obama as a “warmonger,” and it’s worth highlighting. Sure, Obama might have a plan to get us out of - and then back into - Iraq, but it’s no guarantee that Obama’s foriegn policy is really going to change that much in terms of military action from our current situation. If anything, deciding to go and “meet” with every loony dictator this planet has to offer will probably create more opportunities, not less.

* Some new, peer-reviewed information putting current “consensus” thought on global warming in context. Short answer - these researchers may have figured out why the models never match up with the reality. It’ll be interesting to see if this gains any traction.

* In a good move, Samantha Power resigned last week after calling Hillary Clinton a “monster.” The problem with Power wasn’t the “monster” comment, it’s what she believes and her possible influence on Obama that makes her resignation a net gain for the Oba