The International House of Bacon

Perhaps the first in an ongoing series:

Things that are not happening: Health and Human Services are NOT redefining contraceptives as abortion, and they definitely are not redefining it based on polling data. That’s what’s being spun by the Huffington Post and by certain folks interviewed by The New York Times as evidenced here.

The document, which allegedly leaked and is linked above, is mostly about the long-standing problem regarding religious belief and medical practice, specifically the distribution of certain drugs by those who are religiously opposed to it. As there are various nondiscrimination statutes and work freedom issues involved, along with the various pooch-screwings that go on when you have the federal government giving money to private entities for health issues. The definition of what is abortion is entirely secondary, and acts only as a definition for the piece, which is standard practice. See this:

Abortion: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus).17 A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that 49% of Americans believe that human life begins at conception.18 Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy, and so would be included in their definition of the term “abortion.”19 Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term “abortion” only includes the destruction of a human being after it has implanted in the lining of the uterus.

That’s the part that has people up in arms. The following paragraph, however, should put people at ease:

Both definitions of pregnancy inform medical practice. Some medical authorities, like the American Medical Association and the British Medical Association, have defined the term “established pregnancy” as occurring after implantation.20 Other medical authorities present different definitions. Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, for example, defines pregnancy as “[t]he state of a female after conception and until the termination of the gestation.”21 Dorland’s Medical Dictionary defines pregnancy, in relevant part, as “the condition of having a developing embryo or fetus in the body, after union of an oocyte and spermatozoon.”

The concept that the definition is changing based on polling is false - does the document cite polling as a part of its research? Yes, but only to demonstrate that the popular definitions match up with commonly-used definitions in the field. Perhaps “inform medical practice” is a poor term to use, but it’s clear where they’re going with this.

As it only has to do with discrimination practices and the belief structures that often run afoul of those statutes in place, that’s all this does. There’s surely plenty of debate around whether pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions that counter their beliefs, and this document will ultimately do nothing to quell that, but that’s what it’s about - this isn’t some end-around on contraceptives.

I strongly, STRONGLY encourage anyone who really cares about this issue to read the whole document - the whole thing is around 29 pages, the meat only the first 20-25 or so before it gets into the basic legalese required of any report. Assuming this report is genuine - and, being a draft, it will likely change considerably if it exists at all in reality - it’s not doing what the spin suggests.

I may not have time for a real link post for Thursday, as I got home late and decided to write this. If something pops up later on, you’ll figure out that I had time.

Still recovering from a whirlwind weekend.

* RIP George Carlin. I’m of an age where Carlin only exists in Kevin Smith movies and funny book titles, missing out on all the fun from the 1970s. Still, this one hurts a bit. Definitely lost a great.

* George Will had a pretty decent article on crime this weekend, arguing in part about how the rising incarceration rate isn’t telling the whole story. There’s a few realities here Barack Obama should take notice on.

* Also, our image in Asia: not too shabby. While some of the results may need some more investigation, it still further calls into question the idea that the last few years have wrecked our overseas relationships. It seems to be one of those truisms that doesn’t hold up to closer scrutiny.

* Some catch-up from Friday: Obama not taking public financing for the general contest. My question is this - why did he have to lie about it? We all know that Obama’s essentially printing money at this point, so why does he have to lie about where the Republican funding is coming from? What benefit does this provide, especially when he’s going back on his original promise of taking the funding. I’m no fan of public financing of elections, but this is just an utterly fascinating turnaround.

* The other big news between posts was the FISA deal, which pushes the FISA “update” through while allowing for immunity for participating telecommunication companies if the federal government provides a certain type of evidence. This is being touted as a “compromise,” although it reads more like the Democrats knowing that they can’t win on this issue and trying to save face. I’m not against immunity - this whole issue was a giant bowl of idiocy on all sides - but there’s no reason to expand FISA at this point.

* Power Line dissects Obama’s statements about his comparisons between terrorists on trial, Nuremburg, and the reality of the 1993 bombings. I’m starting to wonder who Obama’s history adviser is.

* Did you know that Barack Obama outraised John McCain in May? Seems like a given, right? Barack Obama only beat him by $200k. It’s unlikely, but it’ll be interesting if that holds up.

* Oh, that whole thing about Obama and NAFTA, how things got “overheated?” His campaign still thinks that Obama’s committed to renegotiation/withdrawal. Anyone want to take bets on the campaign position this week?

* QandO asks “Where’s the outrage” in response to health care providers denying care to those who won’t benefit long term from it. Specifically, why it’s outrageous when a private company does it, but ignored when it’s the government.

* Speaking of international distaste with American foriegn policy, Europe is concerned about Obama’s Iran policy, which they fear would undercut the progress they feel they’ve been making. Change we can believe in, right?

* A great interview with Amity Shlaes with notes about the Presidential candidates. Her book, The Forgotten Man, is one of the better recent books about the Great Depression’s true economic impact, and when she says that Obama appears “unaware of the economic consequences of government expansion that happens under the New Deal name,” it’s worth listening to. The book is worth your time, too.

* This all brings us to a pretty interesting editorial from Michael Barone, about Obama’s refusal to allow the facts to dictate his policy slate. Considering that was/is a chief criticism of the Bush administration over the years…

* The Enumerated Powers Act is such a common sense law, it’s a shocker it’s not always in play, and it’s not the least bit surprising that it won’t get off the ground.

* Finally, baseball fun: What happens when a switch pitcher needs to pitch to a switch hitter? A great minor league baseball clip.

Plan for the week - probably no posts through the weekend. With the upcoming extraction, I have no clue how I’ll feel and probably won’t be interested in parsing political commentary. I was going to pre-write a few things, but my allergies are acting up again and I’ll likely go to bed earlier than normal tonight, so yeah.

I’m sure many of you will be devastated.

* Ken McKracken notes Obama’s unawareness regarding Iran policy. This is a pretty interesting note - how did he miss that?

* Adventures in legal prostitution.

* Why is Obama against the South Korean trade deal? Seriously, this is absolutely baffling.

* I have to say, Obama turning down a joint trip to Baghdad with McCain is really ballsy, especially stating that “We don’t need any more ‘facts’ to know that this war has been lost.” I liked the McCain move here - take a calculated gamble and see if you can’t get Obama to change his mind, and it ends up being lose-lose. The simple fact remains that if Obama was at all confident in his position regarding the situation in Iraq, he’d go along with this. He won’t because, I suspect, he knows he’s wrong and this is an issue he feels he simply cannot shift on. After all, for the amount of change he’s espousing, he simply has to stay as closed minded on this issue as his supporters tend to be.

* Jim Geraghty has some questions regarding Obama and his return to the “agricultural specialists” line.

* Adam, you were looking for me to bitch about Bush, here’s one: he signed that anti-genetic “discrimination” law into effect last week. Absolutely ridiculous. Even discounting the whole “government again intervening in the private sector,” the problem with this bill is that it forces insurance carriers to carry risk that they shouldn’t have to carry. I’m sorry, but at what point does it make sense for, say, an insurance company to offer flood insurance to an area that floods twice a year?

* Tom Coburn on the prescription for long-term Republican gains: Act like Republicans. Almost sounds too easy.

* Finally, some poll numbers. McCain beats Obama and Clinton on favorability, Obama’s unfavorables are higher than his favorables (very surprising), and a quarter of Democrats plan to vote for McCain.

* Way to go Vermont for incentivising organ donation. A good start.

* A small piece on GraniteGrok about one of my favorite Senators, John Sununu. He’s currently trailing behind Shaheen by uncomfortable amounts, and his campaign seems incredibly slow to get rolling, considering that it’s May now and no one’s heard as much as a peep, but here goes nothing…

* Also, Sununu’s name coming up in the VP talks for McCain. He’d be a great choice if we didn’t need Sununu in the Senate.

* From Urgent Agenda, Jeff Greenfield’s piece on Orwell and elitism. Provides a nifty contrast to the current race.

* I love this concept.

* More problems for Obama: people aren’t buying is comments about Wright. This is at least more plausible than the “closet Muslim” smear that went out there, which is why Obama can’t ignore this. Although, it appears, he just might anyway.

* Remember, these are being touted as improvements to Canada’s health care. No thanks…

* Is the media really taking it easy on McCain? Power Line puts another notch in the no column, thanks to the New York Times.

That’s all for now…

All while dreaming of GTA IV and Mario Kart Wii…

* I’ve said all that needs to be aid about Wright at this point, I’m just glad the left is finally waking up on this. Kinda.

* Evidence that gas price predictions are completely useless.

* From the Club for Growth, the economics of panhandling.

* Barack Obama wants to raise capital gains taxes? Here’s a likely scenario if that occurs. And McCain is allegedly the one without economic knowledge?

* The Supreme Court upheld a voter ID requirement. I’m not against this, and I’m surprised that it was upheld, moreso that Stevens came on board with it. A voter ID is free in Indiana, which aids in the situation, but as long as the state doesn’t put any roadblocks up in terms of ability to get a voter ID (i.e., money or transportation issues), I see no reason why we shouldn’t require it.

* Unexpectedly funny shopping bags from Oddee, one of the more fun blogs out there.

* Free Tibet flags made in China. The jokes write themselves.

* I have to laugh at how organized the Ron Paul people are even at this stage of the game. This may be the bite in the rear end the GOP needs to rekindle its roots a bit.

* Child services removes kid from father’s custody after he mistakenly gives his son a Mike’s Hard Lemonade. I wish this was a joke, it’s completely pathetic.

* Harkening back to yesterday’s question, a Pennsylvania Wal-Mart cannot sell generic prescription drugs for less than $9 or it will violate anti-trust regulations. Who are they helping here, exactly?

* I’m not a fan of McCain’s health care plan. While it’s a step in the right direction, it’s not enough to really make a legitimate impact at this point. In situations where the health insurance is costing upwards of $1000/month combined employer/employee, a $5000 tax credit isn’t going to make a difference and isn’t going to change the employer/employee relationship. McCain’s been a pleasant surprise economically thus far, but he’s not quite there yet on health care.

* Is Jimmy Carter our worst ex-President? I’m starting to wonder.

* Finally, GraniteGrok on governmental disdain for citizen-approved budget votes. It’s a cool quirk of the New Hampshire system in some places that we get to vote on the budget - and thus make it easier to say “no!” to worthless increases. Naturally, town officials are appalled by the activity, and accuse the townspeople of not knowing what they’re doing. Classy.

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!

Catching up while wondering who the mystery first pitch is for Red Sox opening day, and whether Obama’s promise to listen to the generals on the ground in Iraq applies to Gen. Petraeus this week.

* Bush fast-tracked the Colombian Free Trade Agreement yesterday. I said it before - for all the negatives of the Bush Presidency, his record on trade, on a whole, is not one of them. It’s especially refreshing when hearing the alternatives from the Democratic side.

* The rumor is that Condoleeza Rice is angling for the vice-presidential nomination on the McCain ticket. Unsolicited advice for McCain - we don’t know a thing about her, so don’t do it.

* Not everything is rainbows and unicorns financially on the left.

* Chances are that, if you have any interest in video games, you’ve already played You Have to Burn the Rope. If not, go and play it - you’re in for a treat.

* Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek on pessimistic bias regarding the economy. I’m generally more optimistic about these things myself, as he is.

* A question - it seems that every single time a politician or Presidential candidate attempts to use a person as an example for their own health care complaints, they’re lying about it. Why is that? We know that some people have it bad, why do they struggle so much to find them?

* Corn is now at $6/bushel. Thanks, ethanol! At least my gas prices are lower! Wait, what?

* In a “naw, really” moment, it appears that the health care requirement in Massachusetts has resulted in a - you guessed it - shortage in available doctors. Remember, this is the same kind of plan favored by Hillary Clinton.

* Obama’s positive ratings are due more to “how he makes voters feel than by specific characteristics they attributed to him.” But, again, I’m a jerk for pointing this out.

* Finally, more nationalization schemes from Hugo Chavez. I worry a lot for Venuzuela, and more because it’s another thing in a long list that the United Nations was designed for and that they’re essentially punting on. No, it’s not Darfur, it’s not Zimbabwe, it’s not Tibet, it’s not Taiwan. But it’s bad, and that no one is willing to step in through the allegedly essential international community is patently ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whew.

I’m so behind. Or something.

* Budget situation in New Hampshire worse than feared. The worst part is that there’s no way in hell we’ll be able to vote Lynch out this year. Absolutely pathetic stuff here.

* Some crazy video from North Korea. Rarely do you get to see such first-hand images from there, really crazy stuff.

* Peter Bagge’s cartoons in Reason are always fun, but his illustrated log of his time during the New Hampshire primary is fun. Mostly non-political, it’s worth a read.

* Will Obama get in trouble for misstating charitable contributions on his tax returns? He apparently filed an amended return, but what does that one say? It’ll be interesting to see if there’s much follow up on this.

* Also via Reason, a question posed by the Christian Science Monitor regarding the Constitutionality of mandated health insurance. I think it’s a little cowardly that they consider single-payer capable of passing muster, but as for the topic at hand, it’s a neat argument I hadn’t thought of.

* Speaking of single-payer, more horror stories. At what point do these stop becoming the exception?

* The United States’s corporate tax rate just got more uncompetitive, as New Zealand drops its rate a bit. John McCain’s the only person even considering a corporate tax rate cut, one of the few things we really need from the government currently. Barack Obama wants to essentially charge corporations more. Does this make sense to you?

* Hillary Clinton - willing to force you to buy health insurance while ignoring the bills for the health insurance her campaign is responsible for. Class act.

* GraniteGrok offers a great statement on why conservatives should vote for McCain. It’s similar to other statements on the matter, but this one really resonated with me a bit.

* The top ten most unreasonable parking tickets.

* And the final tally on “Earth Hour?” No significant fall in power use.

* I’m interested in seeing how Obama rectifies the differences between his Illinois Senate position survey and today. Not that changing one’s mind is a bad thing, but an explanation of how one gets there would be nice.

* Speaking of, here’s more detail on a dishonest Obama ad. Populism kills.

* I’ve said it before that Rev. Wright is different than Rev. Hagee because Wright was involved by invitation with Obama’s political career and Hagee was not. Well, Barack Obama has his Hagee now, and it’ll be interesting to see how Obama’s supporters spin this one.

* Civil disobedience at its finest. Hell, it’s hardly disobedience as much as a protest of ridiculousness from a local high school who punished some students for having pictures with plastic cups on their Facebook pages, implying underage drinking. So some students get together, rent a root beer keg, and have a party. Cops show up, everyone blows 0.0s, and it gets on YouTube. Lovin’ it.

* FactCheck appears to side with me regarding Obama and lobbyist money. FactCheck is hardly a extreme right-wing source, for the record. The FactCheck.org piece is here.

* Christopher Hitchens savages Hillary Clinton. It’s sometimes hard to remember that Clinton is only marginally better than Obama in the grand scheme of things.

* Best hockey fight of recent memory. I grew up hating Patrick Roy, I’m glad his son is a tough guy.

* What every American should know about the Middle East. I didn’t know two of these things.

* Finally, a note about how corporations helped in the Katrina aftermath. An interesting thing to recall in a year of populist claptrap about corporate America during an election year.

* Chrono Trigger a better investment than Apple. I was amused. And rightfully so, actually - Chrono Trigger is much better than anything Apple put out.

* I thought you couldn’t disown a crazy uncle?:

White House hopeful Barack Obama suggests he would have left his Chicago church had his longtime pastor, whose fiery anti-American comments about U.S. foreign policy and race relations threatened Obama’s campaign, not stepped down. “Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying at the church.”

So after two weeks, the story doesn’t fade (and why should it when more comments such as the “bombs were built to kill blacks” and “garlic noses” come out), and Obama has to change his tune again. His numbers have gone to hell against McCain, the only polls he’s showing no harm on the Democratic side is a barely-reliable Gallup and a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll that has, for some points, a +/-7% margin of error in the oversampled groups that favor him the most. This is getting craaaazy.

* New Hampshire has its cake and eats it, too. Congrats to being one of the few states that refused to comply with Real ID and still got an “extension” from the Department of Homeland Security.

* What is with the Los Angeles Times? For those not aware, the Times published a story about Sean Combs (Puff Daddy, P. Diddy, etc) being linked to the Tupac Shakur murder. The problem? It was based entirely on fabricated documents. You’d think the media would learn after the Rather debacle in 2004.

* Obviously, they’re an advocacy group, but a study published at NORML notes that 70% of people who are getting treated for marijuana addiction do so through court-mandated programs. This means that we’re seeing people take treatment as opposed to prison time, and seeing the anti-legalization forces point to the treatment number as if it means something. Sigh. I made a prediction in 2000 that marijuana would be legal by 2010 - that ain’t happening.

* Also, The New York Times sorta gets RickRolled. Hoaxes are fun. Radly Balko linked both of these earlier, always worth a look.

* An interesting situation might be cropping up in Pennsylvania, where gun control may become an issue in the upcoming primary. Especially with the Supreme Court opinion on the Washington, DC gun ban coming up, this could cause some further pain to the eventual Democratic candidate against McCain if it comes up.

* Barack Obama’s doing some more detailing of his economic plan, and you know it’s rough when a guy who says he needs to learn more about economics has a much more sustainable plan than a guy who’s at least acting as if he has a clue. A capital gains tax hike (which would negatively impact investment, which is already hurting in the current climate), more regulation in banking (not that, you know, regulation isn’t part of what’s causing the credit crunch right now), and handouts for those who signed bad mortgages they can’t pay are all things that won’t address a single issue we’re facing, and could very well make things worse long term. This isn’t to say that Clinton or McCain are adequately addressing the problems in the economy right now (our uncompetitive corporate tax rates, the straight costs of doing business, etc), but Obama’s looking at sending us down a potentially hazardous path.

The speech in full is here, and the almost immediate praise of Alexander Hamilton should set off huge, huge warning flags to anyone with knowledge of Hamilton’s role in the formation of this country pre-Federalist papers. Economic populism like Obama’s spouting ends up benefiting no one except the person spouting it, and the worst economic situations that we’ve ended up in have, in part, stemmed from policies that grow from those areas. Obama should know better, but he, of course, does not. Example? “If we can extend a hand to banks on Wall Street, we can extend a hand to Americans who are struggling through no fault of their own,” was a line Obama put out there. Is he really taking the position that those who signed and initialed the 40-odd pages on their mortgages that they now can’t pay aren’t at fault? Really? Besides that, he’s on the opposite side of public opinion when it comes to the Dodd-style bailout program that Obama’s endorses, and that’s not even covering the fact that the rough draft we’re seeing probably won’t work. Mistake after mistake after mistake.

As a humorous aside, Obama went to a fundraising event, $1000 a plate, following the speech. Where was it held? Credit Suisse’s building, one of the top ten subprime lenders in the United States. Disconnect much?

* Children of Men as a television show? On one hand, the movie (which I thought was phenomenal) worked because it was a crazy ride through a bizarre setting, and didn’t let up. I’m not sure a serial television show will work quite the same way. On the other hand, one of the co-creators of the Battlestar Galactica reboot is behind it, so it’s likely worth a shot.

* More stupidity from Obama. The National Review notes the problems inherent in the IRS doing your taxes for you. I’ve probably had a more visceral negative reaction to this proposal than much else on Obama’s platform.

* Linked everywhere, a horrible b-movie waiting to happen comes to life in Mexico, as vigilantes storm cities and towns looking for emo kids to kill.

* The US media doesn’t have a huge presence in Iraq. Then we wonder why the negative stories are the ones that gain traction.

* What’s the proper response when people are leaving your state in part because of taxes and regulations? If the answer is “spend more money, and then propose to fill the gap via tax hikes and regulation,” your name must be Massachusetts. And Hillary Clinton wants to expand MassCare-style health planning nationwide?

* Finally, my new favorite blog? Photoshop Disasters, which is exactly what the name implies. My personal favorite examples? Lady Guenivere’s mutant hand and Imagine Watermarks.

Have a good weekend.

* 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 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.

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.

Last week, I discussed some basics regarding Obama’s position on economics. Since then, he’s pushed out some more information on what he wants to do economically, and it ain’t pretty.

Let’s review really quick: right now, employment is what’s considered full - hovering around 5% unemployment, may leap up a point between now and the election, which is still decent. The manufacturing sector has been decimated in a number of areas, specifically the Midwest, and we’re hampered in part due to a xenophobic economic policy that has fear of foriegn made goods and irrational hatred of foriegn-based companies and outsourcing. Our corporate tax rate is uncompetitive with other comparable nations, and is only getting worse. To say that the economy is the top issue in this campaign is not a bad thing to say, really.

The first big pitch is that he’s looking to create two new major public works initiatives - one for “green energy,” one for “Infrastructure Reinforcement.” Let’s put one thing out of the way - the idea that the government can create jobs in this way was tried during the Great Depression: it didn’t work. The unemployment rate at the height of the problems in the 1930s was at 25%, and the result before the war issues began to ramp up for the United States was at 17%. Hardly a vast improvement for what it meant to be, and, more importantly, did nothing to help economic prospects and possibly aided in stalling them. Beyond that, what’s “Infrastructure Reinforcement” outside of the same sort of bogus earmark spending that voters overwhelmingly rejected in 2006 and are still considered a big issue today? Obama wants to spend $500b on infrastructure when it’s all said and done - what?! And so he wants a “Green energy sector,” whatever that means - will it mean more food for fuel that only ends up hurting the environment as well as the same poor and middle class he claims to be all about? (The answer, by the way, is yes). To be fair, Obama’s not shutting the door on nuclear power, but he’s hardly willing to pioneer an easy, long-term, viable pitch to our energy woes, either. Instead, it’s more of the same regulation that doesn’t work and ends up hurting the middle class where they can’t afford to be hurt - at least according to Obama’s narrative.

His other big platform piece is health care. His plan is dicey at this point - sometimes he wants universal, sometimes he doesn’t, he doesn’t like the Clinton plan, but his plan will insure all kids, etc. Two things we do know - it won’t work, because we we can’t get people to enroll in the plans provided to them already, and that it’ll cost a lot. Obama himself claimed last year that it would cost up to $65b a year, but if the Massachusetts funding gap is any indication, that number will go way higher.

Of course, that’s not the only way he plans to help people, you know. Tax credits! Increase the Earned Income Tax Credit, refundable credits for college students, savings credits, mortgage credits, tripling the EITC for middle class earners! Of course, Obama wants to close what he considers tax havens and increasing taxes on the top 1% of earners to help pay for these things. The problem, of course, is that the Bush tax cuts, in full, only accounted for roughly $110b/year, and closing the so-called loopholes isn’t going to bridge the gap in his spending proposals any further. You like the deficit spending now? Just wait!

Granted, we all need a tax cut - the taxes we pay right now don’t make sense, and the code is extremely complicated. But when the answer is to get those who create the jobs, invest in companies who create the jobs, and the companies that provide jobs, to pay more taxes, and to knock trade advances (and they are advances) such as NAFTA along the way, that’s not the route to a healthy economy. If you want more jobs, you don’t tell people “I want you to incorporate here, but I’m going to make you pay more money to the government to do it, and, oh, force employers to set up an IRA for you. Oh, and did I mention raising the Social Security cap, which will raise taxes quite a bit more for a number of people in that $100k-500k bracket who aren’t exactly rich, but, depending on where they live, aren’t poor either?

This is a huge error, and, more importantly, contrary to the meme Obama wants to push out there - this is typical Washington politics. This is the same type of politics we’ve seen for 70 years running now - government can solve the problem (even though they can’t) and the way to prosperity is by fleecing those who create it (it’s not). Politics as usual. I’d love to hear some defenses of this, because this seems epic in its proposal stage. He may not get much of it passed, but is that even worth a risk to possibly give that opportunity? I sure don’t think so.

Quickies:

* Solid gains in how homosexual/transgender kids are treated by their peers, contrary to what the Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Bill proponents would like to paint. We still have a ways to go, of course, but I liked reading this today.

* So, Senator Obama, when it turns out that one of your predictions turned out to be false, what do you do with the publication: Admit you were incorrect, or send it down the memory hole and hope no one notices? I’m sure not surprised by the answer.

* Interesting news story #1 this week is the Declaration of Independence by Kosovo. It’s causing Europe some minor fits, but I’m in favor of it - secession is often necessary, unfortunately.

* Interesting news story #2 is Fidel Castro stepping down. I don’t expect much change from Fidel to Raul, but even the outside chance that this can cause some reform in terms of normalizing relations and getting Cuba moved somewhere close to the 21st century is good enough for the moment.

* Interesting news story #3: Pakistan’s Musharrif appears to be on his way out. This is probably a more important story than Iraq in terms of the 2008 election, especially seeing as we have a candidate who isn’t all that interested in Pakistani autonomy attempting to run the show.

* Idiotic, unhelpful regulation at work.

* An interesting piece reprinted at Cato regarding global warming data and urban heat.

* The possibility of finding life on other planets in my lifetime may have gotten a step closer this week, as a study released suggests that there are a number of stars of similar stature to our own Sun, and that there could be a very large amount of Earth-like planets rotating them, or being formed. Cool stuff.

* Howard Kurtz contrasts the media treatment given to Hillary Clinton as opposed to Obama.

* One thing I’m not impressed by is the “Obama plagiarized Deval Patrick” smear attempt. When you base your campaign on ideas and platitudes, you’re going to sound like other people who do the same thing. I’m also not impressed at all by the “I did coke and had gay sex with Obama in 1999” smear that’s floating around the blogosphere right now - it’s completely ridiculous and ultimately a sickening prospect. What I am impressed by is that Obama only considers hanging a Che Guevara flag “inappropriate” while not demanding that his volunteers take it down. While I’m glad he’s said it’s inappropriate, you’d think he’d take the moment to focus on why it’s inappropriate as opposed to simply glossing over it and saying that it’s “offensive to Cuban-Americans.” I mean, he says that Guevara and he don’t share ideas, but his economic policy seems to be trying to send us in the same direction. It’ll be interesting to see if this story ever truly dies off.