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.

Let’s see what we can plow through.

* 100 pubs in Ireland, 7% of their total, have closed shop since Ireland’s smoking ban went into effect. The prediction is that 100 more will close in the next year. Take from that what you will.

* Jacob Sullum wrote an excellent piece for Reason about the Texas FLDS raid. Since going to print, however, more information has surfaced, such as the fact that only two children were indeed underage parents per Texas law. Those two being the impetus for taking 468 children from the compound because of alleged danger. My goodness, did the authorities screw up this one.

* How will Obama’s 16 month withdrawal plan work (assuming that’s his plan)? Soldiers in Iraq suggest it won’t.

* So IndyMac collapsed, in part because of a run prompted by Chuck Schumer’s commentary (although it likely would have collapsed anyway), and Fannie and Freddie Mac are in a little trouble. Interestingly, the problem some are describing on the left is not enough regulation on the latter companies, even though the Democrats stood in the way of those regulations. Regardless, I do find the regulation calls to be empty, considering how heavily regulated these companies are and how they’re not-so-subtly urged to lend to otherwise unworthy candidates. Part of capitalism is failure - it’s time we understand that a bit.

* The Manchester Union-Leader is spot-on: “MAYBE THE quickest way to lower oil and gas prices would be this: Immediately enroll every Democratic member of Congress in an entry-level economics class.” I wonder if the drilling situation will hurt Democratic chances in the House and Senate at all in November.

* Why is Obama’s Iraq op-ed so ridiculous? He was so dead wrong about the surge, and yet he tries to claim he was right anyway. There are more problems with the op-ed than just that, but it’s really the most glaring part. Ridiculous.

* Oddly enough, New Hampshire had straight ticket voting. I didn’t know that. It’s gone now, though - that should make things more interesting.

* Christianity Today has an election blog now, which is a great read. Here’s a post about a Congressional candidate requiring his volunteers to do 10% of their volunteering as community service. The blog is filled with a lot of these notes you wouldn’t hear about otherwise, so it’s a good pickup for your daily reading.

* Finally, 20 abandoned cities. I found this fascinating. This kangaroo didn’t.

Oh, also? Joss Whedon’s web musical, Dr. Horrible’s Sing-a-Long Blog, posted its first act today. It’s absolutely worth your time - among others, it stars Neil Patrick Harris and Nathan Fillion.

Meant to write a ton last night. Whoops.

* Comparing Argentina to Obama. Change we can believe in?

* RedState on Obama’s new political director, Patrick Gaspard. To say he’s a tad problematic would be an understatement.

* The reality of the inactive oil leases some Democrats in Congress are harping about. Stuff like this ultimately makes me wonder what color the sky is for some of our Congresspeople, because this is absolutely ridiculous.

* Good luck to Forvik, the small island off the coast of Ireland that declared independence this week.

* More on the Iraq journalism drain. You’ll note that violence doesn’t factor into a reason why news organizations are leaving, and the New York Times fails to note the smaller embedding expenses.

* From the Friendly Atheist, the religious landscape survey. Tons of interesting stuff here.

* A fairly surprising poll from California: a majority of Californians support expanded drilling off the coast.

* An interesting observation from Ann Althouse on Scalia and Thomas’s positions on the rights of the accused in the context of the recently-decided Indiana v. Edwards.

* Finally, from Oddee, the twelve funniest wedding announcements.

That’s all.

* Another story on the “people fleeing Massachusetts” trend.

* I’m glad Obama is willing to lie on the campaign trail so easily. No, Bush never pushed for privatization of Social Security, much to my chagrin, nor is anyone else with a chance in the race. But Obama has to play the faux populist, which requires dishonesty, so hey. Same old politics as usual, right?

* Oh, as if that’s the only dishonest thing out of his mouth that’s been put out there the last few days.

* Is Texas facing a freedom of religion situation if child protective services uses the FLDS association as a bargaining chip for the parents to get their children back?

* Finally, some entertainment fun: the trailer for Joss Whedon’s Dollhouse, which looks fantastic, and McCain/Schrute 08!

Slow weekend, I suppose.

* Mark Steyn on The Obama Rules. The best part:

He can’t be called a “liberal” (”the same names and labels they pin on everyone,” as Obama puts it); his toughness on the war on terror can’t be questioned (”attempts to play on our fears”); his extreme positions on social issues can’t be exposed (”the same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives” and “turn us against each other”); and his Chicago background too is off-limits (”pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy”). Besides that, it should be a freewheeling and spirited campaign.

…

This is, of course, an impossible standard. Obama doesn’t expect anyone to live up to it except John McCain.

Partisan? Sure, duly noted. But it’s also not wrong - Obama’s attempts to set the tone of the campaign should fall flat to any aware observers, as he can’t even hold himself to the same basic standard. I’m all for a no-holds-barred campaign, personally, but Obama isn’t the one who gets to decide the rules.

* The inconsistency of polling: On general issues, the population appears to trust Democrats more than Republicans on the general issues, but Rasmussen also notes that the polling shows a belief in the Republican positions, at least on the economy. Republicans never seem to do well on these generic polls, which further suggest the branding issue more than anything else.

* Speaking of candidates and brands, the Republicans lost another seat in a special election. I know little about Davis, unlike the Louisiana seat which the former Democrat who is now a Republican lost a seat to a Democrat, but a lot of people seem to be pointing to an alleged failure of an Obama linking. I wonder if this ridiculous ad campaign the DCCC put out there may have tilted a few thousand votes. For the record, it’s ridiculous because it’s completely factually incorrect. But hey, too late now, right?

* I find this W movie intriguing. Not necessarily because I have any interest in it, or expect it to do well, or even expect it to be historically accurate (which early signs say probably not), but I just wonder about what possesses people to get involved with something like this, I suppose. It’s one thing for Michael Moore to peddle his own distorted view of the universe on his own, but it’d be another to be an actor who reads the script, and either a) fails to recognize how bizarre the take is, or b) simply doesn’t care how bizarre the take is. I dunno.

* We can all agree that this is all kinds of screwed up, right? Guys, don’t get upset when I mention the qualities of the Obama campaign when people are putting out stuff like this.

* A follow-up on the Obama and the Court mention - I’ve presented two different quotes over the months about Obama’s personal litmus test for nominees, but his statements on the actual legal situation throw a wrench in that: On Wolf Blitzer’s show earlier (I haven’t found the transcript yet), he apparently said that the number of cases where the law isn’t clear would be “5 percent of cases or 1 percent,” which would ultimately boil down to maybe one case per term. The problem is that those with the moral compass to see the little guy, or the underrepresented, or whatever, don’t tend to really understand the law - we see that on the Court with the Souters and Ginsburgs all the time. If it were a situation where the Court only heard the cases that fit into that small percentage, Obama might have a point, but do we really think that an Obama nominee would be on the correct side of the coming DC gun case?

* I have a feeling we won’t be hearing any griping about this ad in the near future.

* Power Line demonstrates, again, the media’s treatment of Obama.

* Gotta love that war on drugs.

* Finally, two bizarre stories: the woman who remembers everything, and The Boston Weekly Dig’s poncho ad.

Gotta plow through these a bit today…

* Good luck to the End the Income Tax groups in Massachusetts. They got 45% in 2002, we’ll see what happens this year.

* A very interesting piece from ABC about Obama’s propensity for blaming his staff for gaffes. It does happen a lot, it appears. It’s interesting - in my mind, it could be entirely reasonable that his staff is somewhat less than 100% competent on these matters, but whether he’s using them to cover his backside or being 100% honest, is that really a change at all from the perceived leadership of the last 8 years?

* I agree with the blogswarm - this piece is pretty fawning, and I have a lot of personal doubts that the media will be doing its job this summer. How they can give Obama a free pass on so much in this is ridiculous.

* This New York Times piece is interesting in the context of foriegn relations. I could care less that Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law and left to be a Christian (I had said Catholic earlier, but old habits die hard and this is more accurate), or that it could cause some interesting problems in terms of international diplomacy, but it does throw an incredibly odd wrinkle into the process that a lot of people may think about. Of course, this information will be preyed on by the wrong people who’ll make the wrong connections, but it’s still a very different take on what could occur.

* Bob Barr is officially running. The Libertarian Party convention is in a few weeks, I’m a little scared.

* RedState makes a valid case for experience.

* Locally, we’re finally seeing some activity in getting my local representative, Carol Shea-Porter, out. Now, if only John Sununu would get moving…

* Fun with statistics: the price increases on stamps are greater than the increases on gasoline.

* An odd take in the Washington Post, describing evangelicals who believe that we may “deserve” an Obama presidency in line with prophecy. Somehow, I don’t think John had the second coming of Jimmy Carter in mind when writing the Book of Revelation, but hey…

* Congratulations to Homeland Security, which achieved zero compliance as of the 11 May deadline for Real ID. I promise, I’m not at all complaining about that outcome.

* Finally, check out this music video by unsigned Manchester, UK bank The Get Out Clause. They had no money in the budget for camera crews, so they performed in front of CCTV cameras and then requested the footage from the government per the Data Protection Act. Pure genius, and the song is pretty good, too.

Let’s see what I can’t bang out right now.

* I hope I can be rich enough to do stupid stuff like this someday.

* The news I forgot about is that the looming recession might not be that looming. Not great growth by any stretch, but considering we’ve been hearing about this “coming recession” for as many quarters as there hasn’t been a recession, there’s at least reason to be somewhat optimistic that we’re experiencing a slowdown rather than a full-blown recession. Talk about a wrench in the election rhetoric, though.

* More FCC idiocy.

* Really, one of the best sports stories I’ve read in a while: The story of the injured softball player’s home run, and the sportsmanship of the opponents. Really interesting.

* Jacob Sullum at Reason maps out my relative discomfort with the FLDS craziness.

* Congrats to Capcom’s inclusion in Guinness for holding the record for “Most Number of Games in a Series” with the Mega Man franchise. Further kudos for Capcom taking it in stride and being able to laugh at itself a bit.

* Organic food myths.

* Robert Samullsen at the Washington Post nails the oil issue.

* Yesterday was May Day, so it’s a good time to remember the victims.

* Should Seattle declare its independence?

That’s it for now.

Still not finding the time to write everything I want to write, both personally and politically. Go figure.

* A fairly chilling (for me, anyway) column about the FLDS raid has been linked all over the place. It kind of brings into focus what’s being faced at this point - over 400 kids being removed from their homes based on an anonymous, and probably false, tip. The pregnant and married 16 year olds can technically exist under Texas law, and the immediate danger of the younger ones or the males of the group are completely without evidence at this point. This isn’t to say that there aren’t some legitimate dangers to the sort of fundamentalism that has occurred in some of these extreme sects, or that there may actually be some problems, but evidence matters, no? The problem is the cultish aspect/perception, I think, even if some in charge might not admit it. A good analogy is here.

* To steal a line from the 2004 election, Obama was for the gas tax holiday before he was against it. Apparently, we’re not yet at extraordinary circumstances, even though gas is three times as high as it was when he voted for it initially.

* Humans on the brink of extinction 70000 years ago? Interesting.

* Drew Carey on a subject near and dear to my heart: the right to sell bacon. Okay, in all seriousness (or should I say “frankly”), it’s more about basic economic rights (psst, paft), but you can take my bacon-wrapped hot dog from my cold, dead hands.

* EconLog on basic fiscal reality.

Yay Friday!

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!

For those new or who need a refresher, this was a poll I took and these were my initial thoughts on the whole atheism angle. As with the last time, a lot of this will be stream-of-consciousness in a way, so it may come out disjointed and crazy, but given that I meant to make this post close to 6 months ago, a lot has gone through my mind about, well, everything, so yeah.

First, this kind of post was an interesting read for me recently, and this image caught my eye - for those who aren’t clicking through or can’t do images, there’s a poster about different religious takes on “The Golden Rule”, and a person’s self-made atheist counterpart, which simply states “Don’t do the dumb shit that religious people do to each other.”

One of the main problems I’m having in the whole atheism…conundrum, I suppose, is the rank arrogance associated with it. I hate it for two reasons:

1) I’m susceptible to it.

Remember my final sentence in the original post? Completely absurd and completely moronic for me to say, especially since it runs contrary to my feelings on the matter. Do I not understand the mindset of friends who don’t think like me? Absolutely - whether it be on whether they want to vote for Obama or believe in g/God(s) or enjoy Nickelback, I’m not going to get it, but I can at least respect it (even if it means giving some otherwise good-natured ribbing about the latter). I inadvertently made it sound like I think those who do have religious inclinations are somewhat dumber than myself, which was a completely improper statement to make. I’m sorry I made it, more because I honestly don’t feel that way and meant nothing close to that. I never made a public apology, so I needed to rectify that.

2) It’s amazingly ridiculous and self-serving.

At the root of any belief system, a superiority complex exists. You think you have better movie tastes than the next guy, you read better books, you eat better foods at better restaurants. Even so, many of these religions are based, at their root, in a sense of humility. It’s accepting that there’s not only something bigger than you, but it’s so big that we can’t adequately fathom it. Submission is a huge part of Islam, accepting that Jesus Christ had to sacrifice himself so that sins could be forgiven is crucial to Christianity, etc. Submission is not easy, and in what is essentially a major life situation for many, many people, having to submit in such a way to such an abstract idea is a very large step.

Atheism is interesting in the sense that there’s no significant need to submit. There’s no higher power to serve, there’s no hierarchy of priests and mullahs and rabbis, there’s no guiding book on How to Live. It just is. Combine that with the sense (a sense that may or may not be completely accurate) that people come to atheism not so much from family or events or what have you, but from a more reasoned approach involving some questioning and - I hate to use this word in this context, but it’s the best one I can think of - logical reasoning, and it almost lends itself to some self-importance.

It’s frustrating - one of the biggest problems I have at this point is that I don’t feel as if I can really talk about it without it being an affront. It’s easy in blog form - no one’s forced to read this, after all - but much more difficult in a general discussion. I can’t tell someone “yeah, I don’t believe in god” without that carrying a lot of baggage. Yes, it’s a choice I’ve made, yes, it runs contrary to what you think, and yes, I’m not convinced your way is the right one. It shouldn’t be like that. On its head, no one’s going to bat an eye if they say they’re Catholic or Jewish - beyond the fact that they’re socially normal, it’s an acceptable end point to be at. Unfortunately, “populist atheism” as I’ve heard it described, has largely poisoned that well - the rank superiority complex you see from folks, whether it be a silly Darwin Fish or something more abrasive, essentially screams out “I have a belief and it is TOTALLY BETTER THAN YOURS.” It’s different than wearing a cross around one’s neck, which is simply showing devotion to a concept in my mind. To proclaim one’s lack of faith is a statement, and, in a society where the atheists are that 10% or less minority, a fairly controversial one at that.

Why? Why do we have to do that? The answer I hear from other atheists is that it’s simply a proclamation of faith - or, in our case, a lack thereof. But we all know it isn’t, and it’s dishonest to say otherwise. And, even worse, it does nothing other than poison the well for those of us who are perfectly content to leave well enough alone, believe what they want, and move on a bit.

Atheism isn’t activist for me. I’m not sitting here at my computer desk trying to convert you, I’m not handing out “Found rationalism?” pamphlets at the supermarket. At the end of the day, my beliefs in this area are an important part of my life, but they’re an important part of my life. Outside of sharing these beliefs with the general public, your religion doesn’t really bother me, and it’s unlikely to do so unless we hit some sort of crazy theocracy, which is about as likely as an atheist becoming president. Atheism, however, is very activist in what I’d consider atheist society, and that’s problematic to me, both on an ethical level (proselytizing is not a comfortable thing for me, even though I understand its requirement in many belief systems) and on a social level - they’ve SEEN THE LIGHT and must make sure logic rules the day.

It’s like the comments I’ve seen since the election has rolled around about how people are really hyper-focused on science and how some candidates “believe in science” while our current president apparently does not. I mean, the creationism/evolution issue is kind of ridiculous both in terms of basic reality and in how it has tainted the political discourse, but the amount of people who are truly “anti-science” are few, and are not in the government. Translate it to a spirituality thing - most religious people aren’t anti-science, either. They’re not anti-science, they’re not devoid of logic, and many have come to their places through some serious thought. Yeah, you have your share of people who are Religion X because their family is Religion X, but it’s not as if you go through an eternity without as much as a question about any of it. It’s incredibly arrogant to assume that those who believe in God are mindless automatons while the small minority of us who can’t be bothered with it have somehow reached some superior mental plane, just like there’s reasonable disagreement on whether universal health care is a good idea or whether the Mets are going to suck this year. Yes, you think your position is correct, and yeah, you probably spent a good deal of time thinking about it, but that doesn’t mean that your concept is the only one.

Ever since that post in October, I’ve been even more hyper-aware of spirituality than ever before. I’ll be general here, even though I’ve spent multiple paragraphs decrying that - it’s really incredible how those who are writing about being religious appear to be doing so from a point of view of enrichment and positivity, while even the most moderate of atheist writings I’ve seen have the air of superiority and arrogance with a healthy dosage of mockery. No wonder religious people paint nonbelievers as missing something when we act like curmudgeons who find no joy in life besides deriding other beliefs.

Why isn’t there a “Positive Atheism” movement? I know the saying, that organizing atheists is a lot like herding cats, but why does it appear to be impossible for atheists to celebrate their beliefs without having it be a statement or without being complete jerks to those who do believe? To the 75% or so of you reading who do have religious inclinations, how can those of us without celebrate our unfaith without making it a statement? Is that well poisoned beyond repair at this point? It’s hard to say.

I think I’ve gone on long enough. I have a lot more to say - maybe I’ll refrain from waiting 6 months for a follow-up this time.

* 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

* I lolled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Of course the media is being hard on Obama.

* Of course the tax cuts were for the rich.

Someday, things will calm down.

ETA: fixed the WSJ link.

Things apparently got away from me this week.

* I’m a week late on this, but an interesting piece in The Washington Post about how exorcisms are making a comeback.Not shocking, this sort of thing regained prominence under John Paul II. Someday, I’ll have to go into detail as to why I’m not a big JPII fan.

* A “so sad, it’s funny” story: Chairman Mao offered Henry Kissinger 10 million Chinese women in 1973. Perhaps more shocking is that Kissinger didn’t take the offer privately…

* When I first saw this video, it had around 400 views. We’re now past the 300k mark (I told you things got away from me), and it’s a great video. Next time you wonder why I generally don’t trust the police, show them this lunacy:

The kicker is at the end, where he becomes concerned of it getting on the internet. The good news is that he’s been suspended pending investigation, but I expect him to be fully exonerated, because that’s what happens.

* Move that Doomsday Clock minute hand: we may have our first LOLcat marriage proposal.

* A funny e-mail to Jonah Goldberg: Is Barack Obama Angel’s Jasmine? If you don’t get the reference, rent the last few seasons of Angel and get back to me. If you’ve forgotten, Jasmine was the goddess played by Gina Torres, who essentially mesmerized everyone with her demoness wiles. For