The International House of Bacon

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.

* A pretty decent overview of the Obama speech from Michael Medved (thanks Melvin). After not thinking about it for a while, I still think the Obama speech was better than the general consensus on the right appears to believe, but that general consensus might be that turning point to uniting behind McCain the way they would against Clinton. Still, there is room for discussion as to what the speech said and accomplished, and Medved does raise a few interesting questions. Other interesting things I read in response to the piece: Caroline Glick’s powerful personal story which speaks to how many of us would have liked to see Obama respond, John Derbyshire at National Review picking apart some of Obama’s statements.

* Ron Paul is angry that the GOP hasn’t looked to his base of supporters. Well, duh, what did you expect?

* Today’s the 5 year anniversary of the Iraq invasion. I’ve read more than my share of opinions on it at this point that I won’t bother rehashing them all here - although my position as to what “good” foriegn policy is has changed since the war began in 2003, I still think Iraq was a good move to make, and still think we’re in a better position to finish it properly now than we were back in May and June of 2003. I still wonder how things would have worked out differently had we partitioned the country off, but at this point I’m more concerned with finishing right and getting out than bailing and having to fix it again later.

* Marijuana decriminalization of an ounce or less was passed in the New Hampshire house this week. Another reason to love this state. Unfortunately, Gov. Lynch plans to veto it - another great reason to vote him out in November.

* Jonah Goldberg notes the hypocrisy between Obama’s position on Wright and on Don Imus. Don Imus makes an insensitive comment with humorous intent and Obama things he should be fired. Wright makes years and years of comments that are as ugly - if not uglier - and we’re supposed to let that slide. Yeah, I think there’s a bit of a problem there. Obama did say that ” there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group.” I suppose simply being an advisor absolves all that.

* Scientology doesn’t get a restraining order against Anonymous. I’m more amused by the Anonymous/Scientology feud than anything else (I’m not virulently against Scientology, and 4chan runs a good TF2 server, so…), but seeing this back and forth is great.

* Drew Carey at Reason.TV on the human organ market. The fact that we’re so backwards in regards to organ transplants as a society is something that depresses me a lot.

* Finally, mp3 audiobooks at libraries are coming sooner than I would have anticipated. I hope this trend continues.

* 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.

* 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.

* What do we call Barack Obama’s $1 million earmark request for the hospital that his wife works for? All together now - Same Old Washington Politics as Usual. I’ll give Obama some credit where it’s due - he appears to be swearing off earmarks, at least temporarily, and earmarks, while annoying and wasteful, are currently completely legal. With that said, again, you cannot run as a “different” candidate who’s above all the Washington politics and is somehow better than everyone else when you’re not only requesting ridiculous earmarks, but doing so for groups you have an obvious conflict of interest with. It just doesn’t fly.

* By now, you’ve probably seen the ABC News clip of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who heads up Obama’s church and made enough of an impact on Obama where he took the name of one of his books, The Audacity of Hope, from one of his sermons. The fact of the matter is that, while Wright is especially extreme to most ears, anyone who’s a churchgoing person is probably going to be aware of somewhat uncomfortable things that their preacher says. It’s just a matter of reality when it comes to religion clashing with a diverse country. That the media is examining this is a good thing, if only to atone for the ridiculous “A Mormon!?!?” stories we had to suffer through while Romney was still in the race. With that said, let’s not take too much stock in what Wright has to say, either - unless Obama’s showing signs of wanting to hire him for his staff, I think we’ll be okay on that front. Roger Simon sees it as a bigger problem, to provide an alternative view from the right side of the aisle.

EDIT: I wrote this last night. It’s now the morning, and it turns out that, yes, Rev. Wright has a formal, albeit semi-ceremonial role in the Obama campaign, and is often consulted by Obama “before making any bold political moves.” So yes, this is problematic. Much more so than the Ferraro flap from earlier this week, and makes you wonder who else is on the committee that Wright serves on.

* Happy 100th birthday, Chuck Taylor All-Stars. You’ve kept my feet happy for years.

* I lolled.

* I love when statistics and facts back up my gut feelings. It turns out that John McCain has a great rhetorical record, but when it comes to action, he’s completely unpredictable. Need to pinpoint my discomfort with John McCain? There you have it - if I can’t trust him to be consistent on the issues that matter to me, what benefit will it give me to vote for him?

* Let’s be clear - I’m not anti-Federal Reserve. I don’t know if the current situation is optimal, but I don’t think abolishing the Fed is the right answer either. Regardless, EconLog covers a lot of the problems the Fed causes, and I think could use some adjusting.

* I mostly don’t regret my vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. Reason explains the problems inherent in the Paul campaign, and kind of sets a template up for more competent campaigns in the future, perhaps inadvertently. I don’t really disagree with any of this, but it is tonedeaf to the point that Paul likely didn’t resonate with more than 10% of voters in most places because he was ultimately the wrong vessel for the right message. If someone of Mitt Romney’s stature or Barack Obama’s charisma was carrying Paul’s message, it might have worked out better.

* I wasn’t concerned about the inevitable legal challenge to John McCain’s citizenship/Constitutional ability to become President until it got filed in the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit is so screwed up, you could present evidence that the earth rotates around the Sun, and they’d likely find a way to determine the opposite.

* Bill Gates details another reason why businesses are fleeing the United States.

* Finally, I think I’m going to avoid eating within Boston city limits. I’m sick of nannying ridiculousness.

* An editorial by Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe today wonders whether the subprime “mess” can be attributed to - you guessed it - federal law pushing private lenders to give loans to “predominantly minority neighborhoods,” which were of low- and middle-income stature or face penalties. Seems like a reasonable position on the surface if you’re into forcing private companies to act as the public, but it’s an interesting example of the possible unintended consequences of federal intervention.

* God, I love infighting. No primaries for another five and a half weeks, and no one knows what to do with the Florida and Michigan delegates. With McCain in a statistical tie against both Obama and Clinton at the moment, I again can’t help but laugh at the ability of the Democratic Party to shoot themselves in the foot.

* Even though they backed off, the story of the student suspended and removed from the honor society over a bag of Skittles should not be shocking to anyone who’s seen the lunacy that is our zero-tolerance policies in schools today. This sort of absurdity is, unfortunately, becoming the norm. Beyond that, a “wellness policy?” Seriously? I’m glad I don’t live in New Haven.

* Further drug idiocy from our government. Reason shows the fed taking credit for the decline in meth use even though meth use began declining years before the Combat Meth Act was passed. Prohibition is worthless.

* The Wall Street Journal examines Barack Obama’s tax plan to “save Social Security.” The result? A 13% tax rate increase for people making over $200m a year (more than what a reversal of the Bush tax cuts would be, and this number doesn’t factor in that probability, either) in exchange for keeping Social Security out of the red for a whopping three extra years. Removing the wage cap cannot save a program that is a failure to begin with. Barack Obama: Same Old Washington Politics as Usual.

* More on Obama and taxes from the Obamology blog: an unsigned but honest examination of proposed taxes if one of the remaining three candidates wins. Not surprisingly, Obama comes out furthest ahead, and his per-year spending increases are just as staggering. Same Old Washington Politics as Usual.

* I’ve been a big fan of David Mamet’s plays since I was first exposed to him in college. He was the first “adult” playwright I really encountered (not counting Rent, which is an absolutely “adult” production but was all the rage amongst teens in my theatre hangouts) and I always found him to be interesting. The big blogswarm today is about Mamet’s political change of heart following writing a production about “a president who is self-interested, corrupt, suborned, and realistic, and his leftish, lesbian, utopian-socialist speechwriter.” Mamet knows his way around the English language anyway, and reading about his journey into what sounds like a conservative point of view on many important issues is really incredible. A few choice parts:

I found not only that I didn’t trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president—whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster—were little different from those of a president whom I revered.

Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.

I still get blank stares when I point out the resemblences between FDR and Bush.

I’d observed that lust, greed, envy, sloth, and their pals are giving the world a good run for its money, but that nonetheless, people in general seem to get from day to day; and that we in the United States get from day to day under rather wonderful and privileged circumstances—that we are not and never have been the villains that some of the world and some of our citizens make us out to be, but that we are a confection of normal (greedy, lustful, duplicitous, corrupt, inspired—in short, human) individuals living under a spectacularly effective compact called the Constitution, and lucky to get it.

This piece resonates with me a lot, as I was convinced of plenty of what are considered liberal ideas until the Clinton impeachment proceedings, where I then got more involved, more exposed, and figured out what I really believed. I didn’t have decades to turn back on, but I can absolutely relate to the realization aspects of his story. It’s long (and the Village Voice site has been up-and-down all day, allegedly due to the linking of the piece - a mirror of sorts is available here), but worth reading, especially if you want to try and understand where I come from politically.

* Libertas wonders what might be making the film Vantage Point more successful than the other war movies we’ve seen in 2007. They’ve been hammering home the concept that people don’t want to see “America is evil and corrupt” films, and I wasn’t really ever sure I could buy into the theory - none of those movies have been appealing to me regardless of politics - but this is an interesting note about it, nonetheless. The greater question remains, however - why doesn’t Hollywood go for more, for lack of a better term, “red state” movies?

That’s all I’ve got.

The end of Eliot Spitzer’s career comes to a close about 11 years too late. While many are wondering what might have been, I’m quite excited to see the end of what has been a really horrible time from a human being who should have never gotten as close to any position of authority as he did, let alone attorney general or governor. His Judge Dredd (”I AM the law!”), cavalier attitude toward those he was supposed to protect is something that should be villified, not praised.

The lives he actively harmed were in the thousands, the amount of money lost by both corporations and individuals in the tens of billions. Alan Reynolds, who writes for Cato’s blog, shared a speech regarding Spitzer’s tactics yesterday (an absolute must read if you care even a bit about government power and overreach), and it’s eye-opening - a 1921 law in the New York state books, the Martin Act, allows for the sort of cavalier attitude that Spitzer brought to the office by giving the AG of New York unprecedented, overbearing power to question companies for any reason without counsel, using the press to posit theories that companies cannot realistically defend by law, and then extort settlements from these companies as stock prices plummet and ruin the lives of many involved. You don’t have to take Reynolds’s (or my) word for it - take a look at the record in areas such as the Marsh & McClellan suit or the Dick Grasso harassment, and then tell me with a straight face that Spitzer was doing his job ethically, and doing it well.

Thomas Sowell ultimately said it best, as he’s prone to do: “What Eliot Spitzer did was not out of character. It was completely in character for someone with the hubris that comes with the ability to misuse his power to make or break innocent people.” That Spitzer got nailed by an unjust law (prostitution) via unjust means (the monitoring of financial transactions of an arbitrary amount that presumes guilt as opposed to innocence) is a shame, until you consider exactly how many times he used the same types (if not exactly the same) unjust laws to ruin the lives of countless people. That’s what ultimately makes it different than the Vitters or Craigs of the world - they, too, are hypocrites, but at least Vitter wasn’t prosecuting the same prostitutes he was meeting, nor was Craig arresting homosexuals in the next stall over.

Good riddance, and New York should take the opportunity now to right a wrong. Those companies can’t get their money back, and perhaps some of them don’t deserve it. But to step up to the plate and weaken the power of the attorney general is an absolute must - if they don’t, it won’t be a question of if another Spitzer will roll around, but when.

More good articles on Spitzenfreude: Reason on why Spitzer’s hypocrisy is worse than you think, The Wall Street Journal on the press enabling Spitzer’s reign of terror (and QandO has more on this), and the betrayal of human rights groups.

* 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 Obama campaign. I don’t need to write a post only on her anymore, now that she’s gone, but her positions regarding Israeli influence and knee-jerk reactions to accurate reporting on Israel should have given Obama some serious pause. Israel’s far from perfect, but they’re also arguably one of our best allies.

* Outer space is CRAZY.

* Finally, I knew my memories weren’t decieving me: it IS possible to shoot that dog in Duck Hunt.

Has it been a slow week for anyone else?

* New Hampshire government ranked last overall in performance. There’s a shocker. The government was doing well in 2005 overall - above average in most categories. Democrat John Lynch gets into office, we suddenly see a $150m deficit and further infringements on basic freedoms. Go figure. John Lynch’s New Hampshire certainly isn’t the one that attracted me up here.

* More on the Obama/NAFTA flap. Canada is upset because they feel, even as they confirm all the details, that it’s “unfair to Obama.” Uh, no one forced his campaign to tell you he was lying to the American public, folks. Meanwhile, CBS decides to be semi-responsible for once and asks whether there’s “buyer’s remorse” surrounding Obama at this stage. I think that’s a good word for it. Both links from William Katz’s Urgent Agenda, quickly becoming my favorite political blog.

* Apparently, some people were angry that I had anything to say about Michelle Obama. Well, there’s a problem with that: I’m not sure she’s actually aware of what’s going on in the United States. Michelle Obama’s America is a Reel Big Fish song - “Everything Sucks.” It’s not realistic - magnet schools aren’t the problem, and we’re not all mean, we’re just mean to people like you who don’t get it. I don’t expect her to poop rainbows, but at least be realistic.

* Victor Davis Hansen on “The Party of Anecdote”. Another National Review Corner publishing from John Derbyshire really resonated with me, and fits in well with this link: “Clinton, Obama, McCain, zzzzz. Where is our candidate — the candidate for those of us who don’t want our kids to live in a U.S.A. with a billion people? Those of us who don’t believe that a rabble of religious fanatics represent an existential threat to Western Civilization? Those of us who think that sitting round a campfire clapping hands and chanting ‘Yes we can!’ is not an adult activity? Where is our candidate, huh?”

* I’ll say it again - Democrats who are complaining about our international image have no business voting for a Democrat this year.

* Finally, The Washington Post considers Obama mainstream regarding foreign policy. Does this sound mainstream to you?

As noted, I’m having a really hard time talking myself into voting for McCain, mostly because of a wealth of reasons that seem to keep cropping up when I least need them to. The fact that I think he’s generally a good choice for the left on a whole doesn’t help that feeling, and a piece on Reason’s blog yesterday really highlighted that for me a bit more, even if it wasn’t the intent.

Matt Welch wrote a book on McCain, McCain: The Myth of a Maverick (a book I have yet to read but still plan on reading), and his piece at Reason was not entirely positive, but not completely negative either. Two of the three highlights, however, were what tipped me off, even if I don’t necessarily agree with Welch on them.

The first, of course, is Iraq. For better or for worse, McCain at least appears to be framing himself as the war candidate, and while it might have been a tactical mistake a year ago, but with perception starting to catch up with reality, it may not be a terrible thing for McCain to focus on at least in terms of gaining significant distance between his eventual opponent (as he lacks it in other areas). The highlight of Welch’s Iraq note was this speech, where McCain stated that he “will defend the decision to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime as I criticized the failed tactics that were employed for too long to establish the conditions that will allow us to leave that country with our country’s interests secure and our honor intact.” While Welch somewhat mocks the apparent dismissal of the “should we have gone” question, I think it’s a much better way to view it at this stage - no matter how you feel, felt, or plan on feeling about the Iraq War at this point, essentially everyone is in agreement that the sooner we can leave without causing any extra problems, the better. McCain’s dedicated to doing it right, and there’s no question that he’s in the interests of making sure that happens - a stark difference from Clinton, who isn’t looking to rush but is concerned chiefly with getting out rather than solving the remaining problems, and Obama, who’s looking to rush and is fine with going back in if things go sour (which would likely end up costing more and taking longer than any other plan out there currently). Plenty of the Democratic/left-wing anger and hunger for “change” is tied into Iraq policy, but if it’s a major issue for you, the true “change” you want is a complete separation from Iraq, which can only be done via a changeover that ensures that there won’t be a need to go back caused by ourselves. Can we really be confident that the Clinton and Obama plans provide that? Sure, McCain’s might not be able to either, but McCain’s plan is at least aware of the realities that the country is facing.

The second, and perhaps more importantly, is trade. If we learned anything about Ohio last night, it’s that a) lying about your trade statements on the campaign trail isn’t going to help you in the polls, and b) that voting Democrats have wildly poor views regarding trade realities. While McCain has a very checkered economic record, if there’s one thing he has been relatively consistent on, it’s trade. He has generally understood the need for free trade, and he’s been pounding that point home as of late, which is a sharp, sharp contrast from the Clinton/Obama mantras. As others have said in the comments, it’s not like the Republicans have been perfect on trade, or that everything is completely hunky-dory, but compare McCain’s more recent statements (and most of his recent career) with Obama’s alleged desire to renegotiate NAFTA or Hillary’s fairly schizophrenic record on the issue - with global trade a reality, it’s hard to sy that either Democrat is a solid choice.

I’m sure more will crop up as time goes on, but once we see the two parties seriously campaign against each other, I think we’ll see more of this sort of thing reveal itself.

* The news of the day is that Gary Gygax, co-creator of Dungeons and Dragons, has died. This isn’t just news because I’ve started playing, but more because if it wasn’t for this guy, RPGs and fantasy gaming (both tabletop and computerized) wouldn’t exist in the way we know it. RIP, and no saving roll jokes, please.

* The Wall Street Journal has a great piece about the differences between Ohio and Texas. I’m very glad I’m not in a union.

* A list of questions for Barack Obama. Some miss the point, but others, such as how his positions aren’t really representative of “change” or his Constitutional interpretation, are questions that need to be asked but probably won’t be.

* I learned something new today: Barack Obama is against gay marriage, but somehow can justify same-sex civil unions by using the Bible. Oh, but that part in the Bible about homosexuality being a sin and an abomination is “an obscure passage in Romans.” I’m very much in favor of gay marriage, but if this isn’t an incredible example of Obama’s use of speech to somehow at least partially please everyone, I don’t know what is. This was absolutely stunning to read.

* Of course the media is being hard on Obama.

* Of course the tax cuts were for the rich.

Someday, things will calm down.

ETA: fixed the WSJ link.

* Patterico comments on the endorsement of Hillary Clinton by Wesley Clark and former Joint Chief of Staff vice-chair William Owens. His statement is worth repeating: “Hillary, by virtue of 8 years as first lady and 8 years in the Senate, with her 80 trips abroad, is more qualified to be Commander in Chief that McCain, who graduated from the Naval Academy, had a real military career, and has spent 24 years in the Senate, serving a significant period of time as Armed Services Committee Chairman.”

* Did you know that Barack Obama once proposed a federal ban on gun shops within five miles of a school or park? And yet we’re supposed to believe that he’s in favor of Constitutionally-protected gun rights.

* Mark Perry notes pre- and post-NAFTA numbers on manufacturing and employment. More here.

* Meet McCain’s schizophrenia on taxes. I pulled this from Reason’s Hit and Run, but they’re much kinder to him than I’m going to be - it’s one thing to do the right thing and note that the corporate tax rate is too high and that it would be helpful to economic interests if people and businesses knew that their taxes weren’t going to go up. It’s another entirely to only drop the corporate tax rate 10 points (which won’t make a difference in most states) and not make a very simple vow that taxes won’t go up on your watch. Want to prove you get it economically? You’re missing a really good chance right here.

* Byron York at National Review notes that Clinton might have similar NAFTA problems to Obama. This is kind of reminding me of the “John Kerry has talked to other world leaders who endorse him” thing, except that this story isn’t really going away.

* Dear Netroots Left: Republican doesn’t equal conservative. The idea that Obama would fill his cabinet posts with some Republicans is laughable at best - one commenter said it best that it’s just a “you can’t trust your own party with X” waiting to happen - but to act as if Hagel and Lugar are somehow strong conservatives is a disconnect that I’m surprised still exists. Yeah, so Hagel votes with the Bush position - if you guys could move past the knee-jerk reactions to even seeing Bush’s name, you’d know that he’s not a conservative, either.

* The Jerusalem Post puts together a very fascinating piece about Obama and the youth vote. The piece really is great, here’s my favorite part:

His evident charisma aside, a clue to the source of Obama-mania may be found in the demographics of his support: he is far and away the favorite of younger voters and college students, routinely winning over 75% of the votes of Democrats under 30. Obama has tapped into is the first generation educated in schools focused on “self-esteem.” Now, the products of self-esteem education have come of political age in substantial numbers, perhaps with profound implications for this and future elections.

Being an Obama supporter, in a way, is like getting a participant ribbon on field day. It completely makes sense to me.

* Howard Kurtz on the media treatment of Clinton v. Obama:

Would Clinton have skated as easily if she were found to have visited radicals tied to violence? Or bought land from an indicted businessman, as in the Rezko case? Or if the pastor of her church had talked about “this racist United States of America,” as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who heads Obama’s church, has?

I’m not all that into the “association” games that a lot of people like to play - it’s normally a distraction and is usually false or misleading anyway. With that said, however, considering how often these things get talked about, why isn’t there more examination with Obama’s associations?

* WizBang (in two parts) shows how conservatives and percieved conservatives can’t win on certain issues, no matter what. A hint - voting against a certain budget doesn’t mean you hate children.

* A note on the “costs” of drinking.

* I talked a bit about Obama’s rhetorical strategy, and forgot to link you to this example from the John Locke Foundation. “Sure, the free market is great, but…”

* Obama’s idea to have pre-filled out tax forms is pretty much the worst idea in the history of ideas for the IRS. I mean, apart from having an IRS…

Whew!

Back on schedule, I think.

* Charles Krauthammer wrote an excellent piece on lobbying Friday. The idea that any candidate or politician would go against the right to petition the government is really pathetic.

* You know a tax bill is completely moronic when it raises taxes on domestic companies, but inadvertently provides a break to Venuzuela. Great job, Congressional Democrats. Way to live up to that approval rating.

* A fun little memoriam: The Collected Controversies of William F. Buckley.

* From Volokh: Barack Obama, Sept. 26, 2002, where he said that the Iraq war was “a cover-up for a failing economy.” “Right from the beginning,” right folks? This would be one of the most ignorant things I’ve heard from the candidates yet if it weren’t for…

* …McCain buying into the thimerosal/autism allegations. For me, this is one of those issues that bothers me more than the creationism/evolution thing. This is my creationism. Remember how I’ve been trying to talk myself into McCain? This essentially put me back to square one. Pathetically dumb.

* Victor Davis Hansen at National Review put up a great article about what the next President faces “After Dubya.” Puts a lot of things in context.

* I’m not sure what to make of this yet, but 60 Minutes may have been duped again. Whether it happened or not is still being looked into, but the fact that we can’t even rule it out without a second look is more damning about the sad state of affairs in the mainstream national media than anything else.

* Cool link of the day: the incredible expanding Dubai. Yet we still haven’t rebuilt the World Trade Center.

* That the United States incarceration rate is as high as it is is quite shameful. Reason puts it into perspective a bit, though.

* A link I keep forgetting to post: Stuff White People Like, a blog dedicated to stuff that white people like. Pretty funny.

* This is why I avoid Talking Points Memo. Josh Marshall essentially decides, with no evidence of a link but plenty of evidence of ignorance from sectors that weren’t even behind McCain until he was the only choice left, that McCain will run a bigoted campaign against Obama. That’s the hard-hitting analysis we’ve been looking for, right?

That’s all for now.

Yes, I’m bothered by Obama in a lot of ways, but a good deal of it is, at its root, philosophical differences. As said elsewhere, I don’t doubt that Obama generally has the best interests of the country in mind, but I simply think he’s going about it the wrong way. One of the most major ones that keeps popping up for me is Obama’s protectionism.

The root of the issue comes in the fact that we’re now a global economy. The internet has facilitated it on an individual level, and the ease of which to transport goods and services has made it a basic inevitability among the Western world. The idea of a “domestic economy” is in the past, and those who are still fighting the war against globalization have simply lost.

Unfortunately, at least rhetorically, Obama still appears to be fighting that fight. To his defense, he may have had to - both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton have taken positions against outsourcing and NAFTA, and the misguided idea that free trade is hurting “ordinary Americans” seems to be a pretty solid meme amongst “concerned” Democrats. The problem is that the protectionism simply doesn’t work, hasn’t worked, and is not doable in the current economic atmosphere.

Here are the facts: While Obama and Hillary trade blows about who’s more against NAFTA, they both ignore that unemployment has dropped since NAFTA was implemented. No, correllation does not necessarily mean causation in this case, especially in the tech boom of the 1990s, but there’s something to be said about employment levels improving as trade is opened up on both sides of the border, while protectionist policies like steel tariffs adversely affected the economy..

The position certainly has some place in massaging the xenophobic populace’s straining muscles (how soon we forget the Qatar/port authority flap), but it also has root in the old populist canards of the jobs that Americans are somehow entitled to flying away overseas, or the mythological tax breaks for offshoring, ignoring the facts of the matter for an easy scapegoat in an era of budget deficits. The position is not only pandering, but it’s simply unrealistic.

For one, as Daniel Griswald at Cato notes, the choices to the upcoming President aren’t many - unilateral withdrawal will result in tariffs on our trade, Canada and Mexico aren’t going to be interested in reopening the treaty. So this sort of rhetoric has the double-edged sword of angering our allies (which, I’m told, is bad to do given how Bush has allegedly treated our allies over the last year - not to mention unilateralism in just opting out of the treaty, but that’s beside the point.) and possibly harming our economy in a significant way.

But there’s also the outside chance that Obama’s just trying to get elected anyway. His campaign’s been assuring Canada (and this back-channel communication could be illegal if true) that it’s “just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.” Or not. Maybe. Well, that’s nice in any regard - he may be taking a position that will actively hurt our economy, but that might be all a lie just to get elected, a lie that’s probably hurting our relationships with other countries. How pleasant.

Whichever way you slice it, this is pretty bad news. Especially in a time of a slowing economy, any help we can get should be a positive one, and Obama seems pretty set on looking toward the opposite.

Everyone in the Raymond household is various forms of ill and sickly and yeah. Plus, I’m wicked busy, so most of this should have posted last night. Alas…

* The big news, at least amongst folk like me, is the passing of William F. Buckley. I’m much too young to have been directly influenced by him, and I’ve only been reading National Review for the last five years or so, but to consider him anything less than one of the top three figures in modern conservatism (along with Reagan and Goldwater) is probably improper. He made conservatism intellectual again in an era where it was reeling from the disaster of the New Deal and wasting away in McCarthyism. In an era of Bush-administration-style neoconservatism, I’m hoping that someone will be inspired to take up his mantle that WFB’s death brings to the forefront. For a pretty great overview of the importance, Reason pulls it together kind of nicely, and Radley Balko hits a lot of notes that went through my head.

* This is a good example of why I think Obama’s missing the point. And while I give him some minor kudos for his attempt at a response, never mind that he’s likely wrong to some degree on that anyway. Still, Obama’s ridiculous position on it does open up a can of worms - if things go to hell in Iraq once we withdraw, you’re gonna go back in? Yeah, that’ll go over well.

* It’s still way too early for these polls to have any significant meaning, but McCain’s essentially closed the gap in head-to-head polling. Compare McCain going after Obama in the previous piece with Clinton’s anemic “attacks” over the last week - I think Obama’s going to struggle more with McCain than even I previously thought.

* Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy muses over possible Obama Supreme Court appointments. What’s most telling about this is Obama’s view of the Court: “part of the role of the Court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don’t have a lot of clout. . . [S]ometimes we’re only looking at academics or people who’ve been in the [lower] court. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that’s the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.” Uh, no, Mr. Senator. That has nothing to do with the Supreme Court’s role in society. You have no clue what you’re talking about. Can his supporters even defend this ignorance? That he can talk about the Supreme Court in multiple sentences and not mention the Constitution once should really give anyone pause, I think.

* This was a big Obama day for me, sorry: National Review covers one of those odd video collections of Obama on the military and kind of cuts to the chase as to how stupid it sounds to “slow the development of future combat systems.”

* In other news, Obama decides to redefine liberal in order to assert that he isn’t one. I’ve never bought into the “liberal as a dirty word” meme, for what it’s worth.

* How Obama deals with the media. More importantly, what the military thinks of Obama. Remember the howling over Bush allegedly not listening to the military regarding the run-up to Iraq? Do we think Obama’s going to fix that from what we’ve heard so far? Both links from William Katz’s great Urgent Agenda.

* Obama currently has a “hold” in the Senate on one of the Federal Election Commission appointees. Putting aside that this is simply more evidence of Obama equalling “politics as usual,” this would normally not be news except that the FEC is short enough members to produce a quorum, and this is actively harming McCain’s campaign, especially i