Archive for the ‘history’ Category.

Wednesday Morning Links

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.

Friday Links

* 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.

Thursday Middayish Links

* Not shockingly, BarackObama’s tax returns are being pored over, and plenty of unfair attacks are cropping up. One I heard a few times already (and is detailed somewhat at the link provided) is a criticism of Obama’s charitable contributions. Yes, I’m consistently annoyed that richer-than-myself politicians don’t give much money yet push for more taxes that will only end up hurting me. Yes, I know full well that Obama’s charitable contributions seem to trend much higher when he becomes a national name. He also published two very successful books in that time, and had a lot more money, so I’d expect someone who can afford to give $25k to his church to be able to ramp up other giving at the same time. The more important question is whether Obama violated the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act. If this is generally true, well, that’s just another fraudulent slash on his record - can’t change the tone if you can’t follow the rules yourself, Obama. Of course, the problem is the rule, but Obama struggles to understand that simple point, so perhaps beating him over the head with it a bit might help. Same Old Washington Politics.

* Does Clear Channel not want you to know about the XM/Sirius merger? Wouldn’t shock me.

* Rick Astley on RickRolling. Believe it or not, I wasn’t a huge fan of the whole RickRolling phenomenon, I just find the more recent examples and attention interesting.

* Iran isn’t a threat, right? Why are we trusting the United States intelligence community at all right now? I really need to know the answer to this - they missed 9/11 by a mile, they screwed up on WMD, they can’t get Iran straight, and that’s just the damage we know about. I’m not saying we need to bomb Iran here, but exactly what is it going to take to clean up the homeland intelligence community? Having a President and three candidates to succeed him who trust government implicitly certainly aren’t going to clean house over there, that’s for damn sure.

* QandO covers a lot of information on the Antarctic ice situation. Climate is weird.

* Reason’s editors haven’t exactly been kind to John McCain, and for good reason. But they do have a point - if earmarks are your problem, McCain provides a refreshing solution. A bright spot in his spotty candidacy.

* For now, I’ll end on QandO’s compilation of Obama’s positions on oil companies and where he gets it completely wrong. It’s very well-sourced, and it’s a good example of how completely out of it Obama is. Obama thinks the answer to oil prices is stricter regulation and windfall taxes on oil companies, even though the big oil companies (your Chevrons, Exxons, etc) only control roughly 10% of the current known supply, the rest being in the hands of nationalized companies or governments themselves. When the Saudi Arabians own 20% of the oil reserves on their own, trying to lower prices by going after the companies that own roughly 6% is not a logical place to go. Even today, consumers pay more to the government in direct taxes than they do to actual profits for oil companies, and that doesn’t begin the discussion of how much the absurdly high taxes on these companies pass along on the consumer end. But will we ever see Obama (or anyone else, for that matter) call for the abolition of gas taxes? Of course not.

* Finally, the Club for Growth makes a great statement on Bush’s legacy. For all the moronic protectionist things Bush has done over his term, his overall record has shown a definite expansion in free trade. Credit where it’s due.

More soonish.

Thursday Earlyish Morning Links

OMG SO BUSY ALL TEH TIME.

* A new show on HBO with Bob Odenkirk and David Cross? Yes, please.

* I have no idea why Governor Lynch’s approval rating is so high in New Hampshire. He’s killed the budget (and plans to bury it completely after he gets re-elected), he’s actively working to restrict the rights of New Hampshire citizens, and yet 55% of people polled support him. Plus, with his likely challenger not running, it’s impossible to be able to tell at this point if we could oust him in November. If anything, my little time in New Hampshire has shown me that, even in areas where the government is better, you still get morons involved, whether they’re the governor or just a representative from your home city who never intended to serve in the first place and, thus, never showed up. Sigh.

* Thomas Sowell on Barack Obama. I’d call this a must read, but every Thomas Sowell piece is must read.

* Also, a telling story on Obama’s actions when it counts. Barack Obama is often very fraudulent, this is just another story to add to the list. Is this what we can expect?

* Russell Roberts at Cafe Hayek parses the recent story about benefit costs and how they’re allegedly hurting workers. I agree with his analysis, to be frank.

* Fox deserves a massive amount of respect for refusing to pay an FCC fine for indecency. The sooner the FCC gets knocked down a peg, the better off we all are.

* The other big news I’m two days behind on is the Supreme Court ruling in Medellin v. Texas. A pretty complicated case, I think I’m happy with the outcome, but the most interesting wrinkle that will probably be looked over? Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas all ruled against President Bush, and Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer with the President. Go figure. More here, if this is as confusing as you think.

* Hugo Chavez says anyone but McCain. Sounds like a reason to vote for McCain to me…

More later…

Tuesday Morning Links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You tell ‘em, Bill.

* Real-life Rickrolling. I love it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy opening day!

Monday Morning Links

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.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

* 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.

Tuesday Afternoon Links

* 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.

Monday Links

* 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.

Barack Obama’s distancing post

Only because I think it’s unfair not to follow up as things changed since yesterday afternoon, Rev. Wright is out of the Obama campaign and Obama has made a much stronger statement via the Huffington Post on a Friday afternoon (surprise surprise - avoid the news cycle). Beyond the fact that Obama apparently feels that the only people he needs to apologise and comment to read left wing blogs, the statement itself should leave plenty to be desired for anyone who’s on board with him on this. The HuffPo statements are in bold. Observe:

The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He’s drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.

I suppose “drawn attention” is one way of putting it, sure. And note that he’s still pushing the “retiring” angle, as if that somehow makes what’s happening okay - is that a veiled insult toward Wright? Is something physically or mentally wrong with Wright? What does that mean?


Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Well, that’s good to hear. But Sen. Obama, Wright’s been the pastor since 1972. More than 30 years of sermons, and it’s almost completely certain that he’s made similar statements that might not be on tape somewhere, and that you yourself may have heard, having been at the church for nearly 20 years according to the CNN article above. So, Sen. Obama? Is it just the statements that we know about that are problematic, or are there more?


Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

Are they? I mean, he’s one of the people you consult on a variety of issues, he’s obviously a very important part of your life, both personally and politically. Your own statements have more than suggested that he plays more than just a role of spiritual guide in your life, and we all know you’ve hedged your positions on other issues and statements since your campaign started, so why exactly should we take you at face value here? Furthermore, “these particular statements?” If these statements are “contrary” to your own positions, which statements of his are not?


As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago.

Mmmmm, appeals to authority. Noam Chomsky is also a respected scholar. Dr. James H. Fetzer was a Marine captain and has a doctorate for his work in philosophy, and now heads up Scholars for 9/11 Truth. So it’s great that you knew him, Obama, but that doesn’t necessarily mean much. You do hang out with this guy, Rezko, etc - your ability to judge character is hardly rock-solid.


He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It’s a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

Most churches that aren’t named Westboro Baptist do, Sen. Obama. I’m glad that his Church can do its typical Christian duty. This matters why?


Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life.

I wasn’t aware Jesus was all into the hatred, Sen. Obama. I went to Catholic School for 16 years - I do remember some statement from Jesus about the plank in your own eye, maybe you can tell us if Wright’s found his yet?


In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he’s been my pastor.

Okay, either you lied last night, or you lied when you said you consult him “before making any bold political moves”. Which one is it, Sen. Obama?


And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.

So you mean to tell me that, over the course of the 20 years that you’ve been attending this church, you’ve never, ever heard statements like these? Okay, let’s even assume that this passes the smell test (it doesn’t) - what statements have you heard that may have given you pause? Could it be the ones that you mentioned in your book, Dreams of My Father?:

“It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere…That’s the world! On which hope sits!”

And so it went, a meditation on a fallen world. While the boys next to me doodled on their church bulletin, Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpsville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the State House…”

Do you believe that “white folks’ greed runs a world in need” as Rev. Wright does? What other inflammatory statements in this sermon you mention resonate with you?


When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments.

Did you? Does “came to my attention” mean “when the media heard about them” or “when I heard about them?” Are we still to believe you didn’t actually hear him say anything like this? Assume we are: Is the word “provacative” enough to really encompass this man’s statements? Was this statement enough? Apparently not - you posted this, after all.


But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

You know what, Sen. Obama, this is fine - I understand fully that a church community is important to many people, and I’m sure you’ve fostered a number of strong, firm relationships with fellow members of your congregation. Others may disagree with me on this, but I don’t see that as the problem. The question is not whether you’ll remain a member of the church in question, it has to do with your relationship with Rev. Wright and your feelings regarding all his comments, not simply the ones the media has gotten around to digging up.


Let me repeat what I’ve said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

Let me repeat what I’ve said earlier: what about the statements we don’t know about? Why should we take you at face value?


With Rev. Wright’s retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright’s statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.

No wonder you’re excited about Rev. Moss - he co-chairs the committee that you just dismissed Rev. Wright from, and he feeds the messiah complex that’s cropped up around your campaign, saying that you’re, according to the Plain Dealer’s interpretation of your articles, “fruit of answered prayers and the spiritual child of the civil rights movement.” Oh, and Rev. Moss is 73 while Rev. Wright is 67 - odd that the older guy isn’t much closer to retirement, hm?

Obama’s statement ends with that last quote, and the real problem with this is that it’s typical Barack Obama - the classic bait-and-switch we’ve become used to (”I repudiate those comments, and look over here at all this good stuff!”). We want to ultimately judge you on the basis of who you are and what you believe in - when a man such as Rev. Wright is such an influence on your life - and you’ve admitted as such numerous times - the American people you’re attempting to represent as President must know what you actually believe in, and tip-toeing around the issue with hedged excuses, half-stories, and outright lies simply will not cut it.

Up to this point, I’ve only felt that Barack Obama is the wrong man for the job. Right now, it’s becoming increasingly more difficult to believe that he’s even fit for the office.

Friday PM Links

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.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

* 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.

Tuesday Links

* 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.

Friday Links

So much for me not being busy. Hopefully I can write a bunch of stuff over the weekend. I’m sure you’re all very, very excited.

* Michael Gerson was a former Bush 43 speechwriter, so that would probably dismiss 90% of what he has to say in most minds anyway, myself included. I was still compelled, however, by his point of view on the image of the United States overseas. Essentially, we’re well liked in Africa, well liked in Eastern Europe, well liked in Japan and India, and Europe’s unhappy more because of their increased pacifism than anything else, which is largely something that’s unavoidable for the “superpower” anyway. You might not agree with him, but it’s a very interesting position, regardless.

* David Brooks, the “conservative” (quotes intentional) columnist for the New York Times, points out that as Obama’s campaign slips into attack mode, one of the hallmarks of his campaign is eroded as a result. Not that I haven’t been noting that for weeks already or anything…

* If I felt that Ann & I could handle it, I’d push harder to consider homeschooling our own future kids. This chilling California Supreme Court ruling is one I desparately hope will be overturned. This worries me greatly, and I know about the slippery slope fallacy, but what’s next?

* As a postscript to the Michelle Obama stuff from yesterday, I found John Podhoretz’s commentary on it to be illuminating:

[F]or a 44 year-old woman to tell a black audience that things have “gotten worse during my lifetime” is astonishing. When Michelle Obama was born, racial intermarriage was against the law in at least two dozen states. Governors were standing in front of university and classroom doors, attempting to bar black children and teenagers from entering white-only institutions. The per capita income of African Americans has risen sixteen-fold over the past 40 years. Black homeownership has risen tenfold. The black poverty rate has declined from 75 percent to 25 percent.

The piece is relatively short, but really spot-on, IMO.

* Go figure - heavily Democratic-weighted polls show the Democratic candidate winning in November. Y’don’t say.

* This is embarrassing:

McCain’s likely to trounce the eventual Democratic candidate on security issues anyway - when one of your foriegn policy advisors decides to go on national television and concede it like this, well, that’s easy enough.

* I won’t lie - I worry about this quite a bit. Who would have thought a history book that has the KKK as a subject would cause this much trouble?

* From Willisms, a correllation between Iraq war deaths and Iraq war coverage. Some of this might be attributable to the campaign season, but the trendlines are still interesting.

Thursday Morning Links

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 t