The International House of Bacon

Still not feeling 100%, but better than yesterday, so let’s see…

* The “big news” was the John Edwards endorsement. I saw this coming if only because dirty populists need to stick together (I’m respectful to a fault toward a lot of ideologies that aren’t mine, but populism crosses a line for me - the rank dishonesty combined with policies that do the opposite of what’s intended is a bit much), but as a wider-scale issue, is an Edwards endorsement really going to help Obama in the general election at this stage? Does Edwards really bring anything to the table that would make the centrist voters that Obama needs give the Democratic ticket a second look? If there’s even a hint of Obama making Edwards the Attorney General, won’t that scare some people off? I don’t see the benefit past the mostly-already-decided Democratic primary, quite frankly.

* In the rare instance Obama does something right, I think it’s my duty to present it: Obama may relax the federal prosecution of medical marijuana, allowing the states more leeway. If we could get him on board for other issues of state’s rights, he might actually be worth someone’s time, but for the moment, let’s applaud him getting one thing right.

* Willisms on taxes and tax policy.

* RedState on Obama’s lack of momentum. He’s lost 7 of the last 10 primaries, and (I think) is likely to split the final ones. It’s an interesting side note to a primary that Obama otherwise has locked up, and the narrative is ultimately what will keep him from truly locking it up in the next few weeks, barring a Clinton withdrawal.

* Related from Rasmussen: nearly 30% of Democrats want to see Clinton run an independent campaign. She’s not that dumb, is she?

* Chicago overturns its foie gras ban. Good move.

* I’m kind of sad I slept through this yesterday: Manny being Manny, 2008 edition. Those of you not seeing Boston baseball on a regular basis are missing out on some really bizarre stuff, let me tell ya…

* The polar bear is set to be an endangered species. One of those bizarre things that the Bush administration has done, and I can’t for the life of me understand why. I’m not predicting economic apocalypse like many others are, but this is a really problematic listing for me, since the full population of bears has risen noticeably over the years. What’s the benefit?

* Proving that New Hampshire’s Democratic leadership does, in fact, wake up from its daze every so often, the income tax proposal they’ve been floating has been put on hold. This has been a bizarre run for a while, and I need to expand further on this when I have the time.

* More Obama mistakes: They apparently speak Arabic in Afghanistan, and we’ve diverted too many agricultural specialists in Iraq. I remember, either in Newsweek or Rolling Stone back during the 2000 election, a long article about Bush’s relative lack of knowledge of world leaders and things of that nature, complete with caricature of Bush at a desk with Condi Rice as the teacher. Somehow, I doubt the media will be printing anything significant like that as the Obama gaffes keep piling up. It’s a bit much to expect a domestic leader to have a strong grasp on all areas of international affairs during the campaign (although you’d think something like this he’d bone up on just a little more, given the Obama narrative), as they will learn on the job, but the treatment of candidates in this area is telling.

* I may have linked to the story earlier, but the dance ban at an Arizona restaurant has been lifted.

* Finally, Spider-Man’s greatest Bible stories.

* 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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a good weekend.