Check out the photos of ManhattanHenge. (Hat Tip: Shawn Macomber)
Rich Galen writes that Democrats must realize that by virtue of being President, Bush remains in a strong position.
Jane Galt notes that contrary to the perceptions of some liberal commentators, the long-term prospects for Social Security are not getting any better. The system will go bankrupt around 2040. Far more importantly, revenues will begin flowing out of the Trust Fund around 2017.
Why is this more important? Because federal spending has long been boosted by the availability of surplus Social Security revenues. In about a decade, the flow of revenues will need to go the other way. Our income taxes will begin to supplement Social Security benefits. Before long, the US will be transferring hundreds of billions of dollars annually from general revenue to pay Social Security benefits. This will force us to address a very difficult political question: is that a wise policy?
Amusing Google street view sightings.
Mary Katharine Ham transcribes a solicitation call from the RNC. The result is not a happy one.
Is it war on the Bush Administration?
Nancy Pelosi stands firmly against cooperation with our European allies. Why? Because allowing people to purchase what they want to at market prices isn't fair, apparently.
Senator DeMint on the problems with amnesty.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Roundup
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Noted With Interest
Disappointment over on the Left at the poor recruitment of the DSCC for targeted Senate races in 2008. Read it particularly for commentary like this:
Al Franken's entry into the race, along with his strong fundraising, appears to have scared off other Democrats from challenging highly vulnerable Republican incumbent Norm Coleman. However, as much as many of us might like Al, there are reasons to be worried about this. Polling has consistently shown Coleman hovering either just above or just below 50%. At the same time, it has also shown a fairly name recognition for Al Franken, who trails Coleman by 10-20%, depending on the poll. More worrisome are Franken's favorable numbers, which are actually slightly negative according to both Rasmussen and the Mason-Dixon. That is not a formula for making up ground on a right-wing Senator in a bluish state would is very beatable. If Franken's favorables remain in negative territory, there is no way he can win this race.
Hee, hee!
Want Successful Kids? Stay Married.
The Economist has a fascinating story on the economic and cultural gaps between those we might call the 'life-long married' and the rest of America. Based on research from a number of different organizations, it seems that the best educated and most prosperous Americans tend to marry for life, and are better at passing on the tools for success to their children. Single parents, separated parents, and those who move from one relationship to another are at a great disadvantage in trying to pass on to their kids the values and habits that will help them succeed:
There is a widening gulf between how the best- and least-educated Americans approach marriage and child-rearing. Among the elite (excluding film stars), the nuclear family is holding up quite well. Only 4% of the children of mothers with college degrees are born out of wedlock. And the divorce rate among college-educated women has plummeted. Of those who first tied the knot between 1975 and 1979, 29% were divorced within ten years. Among those who first married between 1990 and 1994, only 16.5% were.
At the bottom of the education scale, the picture is reversed. Among high-school dropouts, the divorce rate rose from 38% for those who first married in 1975-79 to 46% for those who first married in 1990-94. Among those with a high school diploma but no college, it rose from 35% to 38%. And these figures are only part of the story. Many mothers avoid divorce by never marrying in the first place. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among women who drop out of high school is 15%. Among African-Americans, it is a staggering 67%.
Does this matter? Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think-tank, says it does. In her book “Marriage and Caste in America”, she argues that the “marriage gap” is the chief source of the country's notorious and widening inequality. Middle-class kids growing up with two biological parents are “socialised for success”. They do better in school, get better jobs and go on to create intact families of their own. Children of single parents or broken families do worse in school, get worse jobs and go on to have children out of wedlock. This makes it more likely that those born near the top or the bottom will stay where they started. America, argues Ms Hymowitz, is turning into “a nation of separate and unequal families”.
The Economist piece further notes that according to the National Marriage Project, marriage itself is a 'wealth-generating institution.' That is, those who marry wind up -- on the average -- four times wealthier than those who do not. It also addresses the seemingly counter-intuitive finding that couples who live together before marriage tend to divorce at a higher rate than those who do not.
I find this piece fascinating, and encourage you to take 10-15 minutes to read the whole thing. It's very reminiscent of the late Pat Moynihan's report on illegitimacy in the African American community, in its linkage between a strong two-parent family and ultimate economic success.
For those of us in Washington, the possible policy responses to the problems of broken marriages seem limited. The Economist makes clear that this is not due to the tax code, but is traced to broad changes in American culture -- ultimately finding its roots in the sexual revolution. The piece suggests that there may be one program created by President Bush that represents a step in the right direction:
Since last year, his administration has been handing out grants to promote healthy marriages. This is a less preachy enterprise than you might expect. Sidonie Squier, the bureaucrat in charge, does not argue that divorce is wrong: “If you're being abused, you should get out.” Nor does she think the government should take a view on whether people should have pre-marital sex.
Her budget for boosting marriage is tiny: $100m a year, or about what the Defence Department spends every two hours. Some of it funds research into what makes a relationship work well and whether outsiders can help. Most of the rest goes to groups that try to help couples get along better, some of which are religiously-inspired. The first 124 grants were disbursed only last September, so it is too early to say whether any of this will work. But certain approaches look hopeful.
Given the evident link between strong marriages and future prosperity, perhaps this is the sort of issue worthy of a national debate -- particularly as we head into a presidential election year. In 1992 Bill Clinton implicitly embraced the findings of the Moynihan report when he called for an end to welfare as we know it. Is there a candidate in the current field who's willing to tackle the larger but related problem of the devaluation of marriage?
Kerry's Doubts About Edwards
This was previewed some days ago:
Kerry talked with several potential picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable after his conversations with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again.
Certainly Edwards would dispute this, and even according to this excerpt from Shrum's book, Kerry and Edwards no longer speak. In case of 'he said/she said' such as this, who knows the truth?
The piece also leaves us with a weird 'he said/she said' on the question of whether John McCain wanted to serve as Kerry's running mate:
One option, the one that would have sealed the election, was off the table. John McCain's political strategist John Weaver had talked earlier with Cahill and said he needed to see Kerry about McCain. According to Kerry, when he met with Weaver and Cahill, Weaver said McCain was serious about the possibility of teaming up with him. Kerry had then sounded out McCain, who rejected the idea.
This is consistent with the account that Kerry offered two months ago: that he was approached by Weaver. Was Weaver acting on McCain's behalf? Was he acting as a free agent, and McCain reined him in? All we know is that this version is very different from the account around the time that Edwards was selected -- which had Kerry repeatedly asking McCain to take the spot.
If nothing else, McCain seems to have moved past the controversy.
Roundup
Cynthia McKinney is considering a run for President. If a demagoguing clown like Al Sharpton can run, why not McKinney?
Phil Klein has a good post on the political ramifications of an economic slowdown. There is a bright side for Republicans, though. A slow economy would make the enormous tax increases proposed by Democrats less salable.
Barone comments on the anticipated candidacy of Fred Thompson. He makes a good point: Thompson does not have the security/defense credentials of a Giuliani or McCain. He remarks that Thompson's demeanor and style might be of value in shoring up that weakness; he might also be helped by picking one of those men as his vice presidential nominee. How does Thompson-Giuliani grab you?
Rob Bluey - who's covering the immigration debate exhaustively - notes the invite to what looks like a good debate: a steel-cage death match between the Wall Street Journal and National Review.
My governor -- Democrat Tim Kaine -- does the right thing, and suggests that the US wins from free trade.
Hillary gets busy undermining US foreign policy.
Novak says that Thompson's campaign will be different.
Daniel Drezner picks on Lou Dobbs.
Did you know that in Coney Island you can still shoot freaks?
Senators seek clarification from Valerie Plame.
Pinkerton on the GOP's win in 2008. The key: rejecting the President's position on immigration.
Sister Toldjah carries this first ad for Gore's 2008 campaign. He's... changed:
According to Peruvian news, a bunch of white points overflew the capital recently for more than a half hour, and were witnessed by many locals. The figures formed a variety of shapes before disappearing. How appropriate that I had an X-Files clip in this space yesterday:
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Leftosphere Rages at Democratic Party
I touched on this yesterday at the Standard. The Hill covers it with some additional detail:
Readers at the DailyKos website were furious about the letter, while other readers were angry that the DCCC used James Carville, a Democratic political consultant, in a separate fundraising pitch. Many said they would not donate to DCCC any more.
“You insult me, sir. And I will not be insulted. Go to hell,” wrote Bill from Portland, Maine.
“PIGS will fly before I will contribute a penny to this s—- ... where is our spine, backbone, morals and ethics,” wrote Left My Heart.
“Unlike our Democratic leaders, I am a Democrat who has backbone and conviction. I am hereby defunding YOU!” wrote Jayden.
Reactions like this will ensure that Democrats return even more quickly to attempts to end the Iraq war without withdrawing funds. You have to wonder if they will ever acknowledge that that's impossible, or whether they will eventually be called on their rope-a-dope strategy of seeming anti-war without actually having to act on it.
Fred Thompson's Getting In
Fred Thompson will announce over the July 4th holiday. I'll be curious to see how he moves in the polls now that he has shifted from likely candidate to real candidate. (But Geraghty hears from a Thompson source who says it won't be over July 4).
Craig Crawford by the way, says that this is great news for Giuliani - since the addition of social conservatives splits that group further. I usually disagree with Crawford, and this time is no exception. While what he suggests is possible, it seems more likely to me that Thompson will consolidate the conservative vote and crowd out the others - Gilmore, Hunter, Tancredo and Thompson for sure, and to at least some degree, Romney.
Think of it this way: which field is better for Giuliani - the one we have today, with McCain and Romney 10-15 points behind, and several others in the 5-10 percent range, or one where Fred Thompson is within a few points, and McCain and Romney are closer to the third tier than the second? I suspect the latter is the more likely scenario.
Chris Cillizza is closer to the Crawford position.
Roundup
Who's to blame for high gas prices?
Representative Chris Murphy says that Members of Congress cannot be expected to police one another. Then why did he vote with the Democratic leadership to block debate on a proposed independent ethics body?
Nick Lampson won't run for Senate. He's probably the only candidate with a prayer in both the Senate race and his own House race. The more likely outcome is that Republicans win both of those.
As always, Republicans are happier than Democrats.
Maguire and Crittenden with thoughts on the latest Plame revelation.
Romney and consistency.
The Anchoress offers tough words for Cindy Sheehan:
Madam, your gracious and courageous son - whose death is tragic and for whom your mourning is nothing less than appropriate - will only have died “for nothing” if his mission is left dangling and unfinished by the very people - and their minions - who exploited you, and who help to make the job of every soldier in Iraq more difficult...
The truth is, Mrs. Sheehan, President Bush is not the one trying to cheapen your son’s sacrifice. I certainly am not, either. Your son’s honorable death is being cheapened by the people who would say, “I support the troops, so I want them to be pulled out of a the place where they can make a difference, and have them stop acting like the warriors they are, so we can all sing Kumbaya and pretend to be friends with the whole world…
She's right, of course.
Google Maps now offers 'street views.' Yet another step in their ultimate plan to take over the world.
Jonathan Last notes the passing of Charles Nelson Reilly. I offer this clip from the X-Files:
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Today in History: Constantinople Becomes Istanbul
Why did Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks:
Friday, May 25, 2007
Ukraine
While you're remembering the fallen and enjoying time with friends and family this weeked, you might want to keep an eye on events in the Ukraine. I'm not sure if this will end up in an Orange Thermidor, but whenever somebody in a former Soviet "republic" lays claim to interior ministry forces it's probably best to pay attention.
Edwards Memorial Day Posturing
Unerringly attracted to the political uses of death, Sen. John Edwards will attempt this weekend to transform the Memorial Day holiday into a soapbox for his campaign to raise the hopes of Islamist brigands for an American humiliation and to erode American political and military credibility around the world . While Sen. Edwards trial experience has indeed taught him the value of dead men in cash terms, it seems he, like his philosophical comrade, Rosie O'Donnell, has misconstrued the identity of those killing American soldiers and marines. Al Qaeda and Iranian-backed Shi'ites, not the Republican Party, are the agents of death in Iraq, both of U.S. military personnel and of the great majority of Iraqi casualties as well.
Those of you who happen to visit the resting places of loved ones this weekend might profitably reflect on the nature of a politician so willing to harness his own political ambitions to the suffering and sacrifices so many have made to protect both the liberties we all enjoy as Americans and the safety of their brothers in arms, whose safety in combat both then and today springs not only from the valour of those sacrifices, but also the enemy's knowledge of the grim resolve of Americans as a whole to see those sacrifices through to their vindication in defeat of the enemy.
Pulling American warriors out of combat in the midst of engagement does not "support the troops." Instead, it makes each subsequent engagement of U.S. forces more dangerous to those deployed because of the support such withdrawal gives to the assessment of American resolve as ephemeral and easily overcome by a determined foe with adequate understanding of American media and politics. Senator Kerrey and Lieberman seem to be among the few Democrats to understand that every action taken to attempt to withdraw American forces unilaterally from Iraq now will only give hope to those foreign enemies who find themselves opposing the U.S. under a Democratic administration at some later point in time--an administration which, thank God, Sen. Edwards is unlikely ever to lead.
Ethics Proposals the Democrats Rejected
Congressional Democrats are getting good press today for passage of an ethics reform bill in the House. But while I provided a partial list yesterday, I thought it might be useful to list all the ethics proposals the Democratic leadership refused to allow to come before the House for debate.
Courtesy of the House Rules Committee, the House Democratic leadership refused to allow debate on the following measures:
- Require the House Inspector General to conduct random audits of lobbying disclosures, and refer improper filings to the DoJ;
- Close the gift-rule loophole for governments and public agencies;
- Make it a federal offense for convicted felons to register as lobbyists;
- Block Congressmen from converting funds in their leadership PACs to personal use;
- Require lobbyists to report the earmarks for which they lobby;
- Prohibiting lobbyists from lobbying for earmarks with federal funds;
- Require registered lobbyists who work for an entity created by an earmark to report the total amount of federal dollars received by the entity;
- Extend the lobbying ban for former Members of Congress, senior staff, and executive branch officials;
- Require registered lobbyists to take an 8-hour ethics class;
- Prohibit a Member convicted of bribery from receiving taxpayer-funded retirement benefits;
- Prohibit former ambassadors and CIA station chiefs from lobbying for the nation where they were assigned for five years after their service;
- Strip pensions for Members of Congress convicted of current federal "white-collar" crimes; and,
- Create an outside ethics review board to investigate allegations against Members of Congress (Democrats complained mightily last year when the GOP blocked such a proposal).
A lot of these seem like commonsense ideas. Why did the Democratic leadership refuse to allow them even to be debated? You have to hope that when they head home for the Memorial Day break, the Democratic members of the Rules Committee--who voted against these proposals--hear from their constituents about it.
Roundup
Moqtada Al Sadr shows up.
PowerLine recounts a rather creepy John Edwards story.
Silence on Al Qaeda torture.
The GOP is no longer trusted on taxes. Groan.
Jane Galt goes to war on Smores.
A very funny 'interview'of Dana Carvey by Dennis Miller. By the way, if you've not listened to the Dennis Miller show on radio yet, you ought to tune in. Find a station here.
Bring your towel today.
Hillary comes across as almost human in this:
Seeming human is probably a good move for her, too.
Fred Thompson speaks on the immigration bill:
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Meet the Millenium Falcon
Scientists with the Fisher Ornithological Observation Laboratory have discovered that a falcon common to Mauritius and previously believed to be a Madigascar Kestrel (falco newtoni) is in fact an entirely new species of bird.
“Actually, it’s a very old species of bird,” said the Laboratory’s lead scientist Dr. Hanz Ohlo. “We just didn’t know about it before now.”
DNA tests conducted at the Laboratory’s offices in Madagascar confirmed that the bird, while resembling the Madagascar Kestrel, is in fact a previously unknown species. Further genetic exanimations of preserved falcon nests, egg shells, and droppings from East Africa, Madagascar, and Mauritius suggest that the new Falcon migrated to Mauritius from East Africa approximately 1000 years ago and hasn’t left since. So scientists at the Laboratory have named the new species falco milleannus which means “the thousand-year falcon” and gave rise to the species’ common name, the Millennium Falcon.
OK, so it's just a late April Fool's joke. What are you paying to view this site, anyway?
Roundup
Republican plans against Senator Tim Johnson are starting to take shape.
It had been hoped that a more pro-market leader in France might give reason to hope for a breakthrough in trade talks. That idea seems to be wrong.
A new Star Wars movie?
A new cut-rate airline offers tickets for $10.
Rob Bluey has tons on the immigration debate.
Just because Norman Greenbaum was such a handsome devil:
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Something Light
Back with more legitimate content later today. In the meantime, something amusing.
Globalization means that China now gets to see the Larry Bird-Michael Jordan McDonald's commercial from about 20 years ago - with a twist:
Here's the original:
Thursday, May 17, 2007
A Note
I'm traveling today, so blogging will be light. There ought to be several posts from me over at the Standard during the day.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Roundup
Will GOP opposition to fiscal reform lead to a new second party?
Greenpeace is building an ark on Mount Ararat. What?
A former Nebraska Congressman considers a primary challenge to Senator Hagel -- if he decides to run for re-election.
Hoyer brings in a highly-paid lobbyist who made headlines for too-friendly loans to Members of Congress, to run his shop.
Michael Turk looks at the RedState/Calvert imbroglio, and argues that the Lefty blogosphere is ahead of the conservative blogosphere and is misusing its influence.
MSNBC uses a spoof site to try to embarrass the White House.
Michelle looks at a grisly crime the major media won't touch. The details are horrific.
Chavez is increasing his nation's dependence on the US.
Congressman Ryan on the Democratic budget.
The Senate defeats an amendment to assess the impact on climate change of pork-barrel projects. Guess we have to keep our priorities straight.
US forces closing in on AQ in the triangle.
Stossel notes that 'all governments find a use for as much money as they can raise.' Good line.
How can the Democrats be facing 'a tough Iraq vote?'
Ron Paul: the Republican Kucinich.
ABC releases the first clip of the 'Cavemen' series. It doesn't look good.
A surprising abortion poll.
The New Horizons probe flies by Jupiter and captures a video of a volcano erupting on Io. It's worth looking at.
The GOP candidates talk abortion, and Giuliani dodges a bullet:
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The Moment of the Night
The Giuliani camp is fast. Here's the moment that made Giuliani the winner:
Here's the key: going into the debate it was expected that Giuliani would have the hardest time, given the attention to his 'shift to candor' on abortion. The other candidates would be ready to press him hard and expose contradictions. But that didn't happen; Giuliani stuck with more general formulations on abortion - asserting his pro-choice view while promising to try to reduce abortions and promote adoptions - and didn't trip up. Further, he saw an opportunity to slam Ron Paul and burnish his terror-fighting credentials, and he took it. This was the most memorable moment of the night.
Avoided the negative that was expected; created a positive where there was none. He's the winner.
Live Blogging the GOP Debate -- Giuliani Wins
Live from SC -- how nice that you can be the first state to secede, but still host the first presidential debates.
Iraq: The Maliki government keeps failing to meet deadlines. Why keep fighting?
McCain - he's a little blinky, but he's right about the fact that AQ will follow us home. It's in our national interest. Strong answer.
To Giuliani: is your commitment to win limitless? He cites Fort Dix to demonstrate that AQ will strike us at home if we leave them in Iraq -- but he does point out that this cell was not directed by Al Qaeda. We must not show weakness, he says. Strong answer.
Hunter: he says that the Iraqi troops are doing much better and can be rotated onto the battlefield to replace US troops. I don't know if I agree that chairing the Armed Services Committee prepares you to be Commander in Chief.
Iran question for Gilmore, from the internet. He says we need a united international approach. The American people must agree that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. It may call for a tough decision.
How many candidates are there?
Romey says Washington is broken. We need leadership to reform the government. Sounds good. We need benchmarks in Washington. Sounds a little like Al Gore's 'Reinventing Government,' though.
McCain on why we must make the tax cuts permanent, and why we need to rein in spending. Tweaks the drunken sailor line... it's getting old.
For Huckabee on the AMT: enact a Fair Tax and put the IRS out of business. What's a fair tax? Is that a national sales tax? Apparently not, because it helps those at the bottom... Congress spends money like John Edwards in a beauty shop... funny, but people will accuse him of being a homophobe.
To Giuliani on the line item veto: why did NYC spending go up so much. Giuliani trots out the Gold Card: the Club for Growth seal of approval. And he did it in NYC. Not sure if Goler has his facts right, but this was in Giuliani's wheelhouse. Wants to attrit the federal civilian workforce by 50 percent.
Brownback plugs biofuels... yech. Plugs ANWR and conservation. We can do better. Wants to be 'Energy Secure.' I'll drink to that.
Thompson: name 3 federal programs you would cut. Thompson talks about all his vetoes as WI Governor, and the tax cuts. Wants agencies to prepare two draft budgets - one at 95% of current year, one at 100%. I only need the first one.
Ron Paul lists 3 Departments he'd eliminate. Makes Thompson's answer look weak.
Going to reduce the frequency of posts now...
Gilmore attacks candidates for not being real conservatives - but he won't name names. I don't expect to go to his website tomorrow to check. He should have said his piece tonight.
Hunter wants to give tax advantages to US companies. But they're illegal under WTO rules, so there will be penalties on US exports... doesn't sound all that great to me.
Grab a beer and come back to Chris Wallace...
Wallace asks Gilmore why he says that Romney, McCain and Giuliani are not real conservatives. Sounds like he flubbed his line on Giuliani though. And Wallace calls him on not naming names. Gilmore looks silly; why not mention them? So he does - attacking Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee.
Giuliani takes it lightheartedly - good response. And he shifts to an attack on Hillary. Nice move. He wants to unite Republicans - effective.
But Wallace TOTALLY nails him - making him answer about being pro-choice and supporting Cuomo. Giuliani goes back to the George Will endorsement. His statement on abortion is pretty good - pro-choice, but I want to reduce abortions.
McCain-Feingold, stem cells, other issues - you haven't been all that conservative. Good line on 'blood relatives and paid staffers.' We need to act in bipartisan manner -- save it for the general. Turns to 'radical Islamic extremism.'
Huckabee with a good line about not getting attention when Gilmore attacks him. He says he got 94 tax cuts enacted - good for him.
Wallace goes after Romney as well. He supported the assault weapon ban... and talks about blue and black suits... says that he was as conservative as he could be in Massachusetts... Eh - ok
Brownback... gets dinged.
Goler gets specific to Thompson on stem cells. He says that they invented stem cells in Wisconsin. I thought only cheese was invented in WI. Oh wait - he says amniotic fluid was invented in Wisconsin as well. Take that Minnesota!
Giuliani on abortion - he sounds tremendously better when he speaks in generalities only. Much less space to trip up.
Huckabee... meanders. Something about how Islamic terrorists don't look for lost hikers.
Goler gives Brownback a 'Kitty Dukakis' question - about what he'd tell a rape victim who did not want to carry the child to term. Brownback gives a simple response - regardless of anything else, if the fetus is a child, then that child has done nothing wrong and deserves protection.
Wallace on immigration. He invites Tancredo to attack McCain, Giuliani and others. Tancredo slams McCain. Amusing line about conversions and the road to Des Moines. Thanks folks, I'll be here all week.
McCain says he would never support amnesty and he backs a bipartisan approach. He cleaves to Bush... not a great answer. But he turns it back to Islamic terrorists.
Wallace - have you pulled back from the immigration debate because it's bad politics? McCain says he's knee deep in it. And he will lead for results. The Senate better have a good bill...
Romney endorses the plan that Mickey Kaus hates - doesn't he? He attacks McCain-Kennedy. He says no special treatment for those here illegally. Sounds like he's flip-flopped though.
McCain doesn't like too much money in politics. He says he doesn't trim his sails for politics.
Giuliani liked illegal immigrants when he was Mayor. He thanks Tancredo for calling him soft -- good line. Giuliani wants a database... yech. He says he knows more about security than anyone on the stage. He wants a fence, a tamper-proof ID, and a way for 'people' to get into the database.
Hunter BUILT the border fence. He makes a big point of it. Did he really BUILD IT, or did he build it like Al Gore invented the internet? He loses me on the rest of the answer.
Ron Paul gives a terrible answer - about how the GOP is the party of ending wars. He wants us to be friends with people... Goler gives him a tough time about blaming the US for bringing on the attack.
10:05 Giuliani jumps in and b****slaps Paul - and says his explanation of 911 is absurd. He gets in Paul's face, and tells him to recant. Paul is thrown off balance. Giuliani took advantage of a nice opening and created a moment that will lead the highlights. He wins the debate.
Confederate flag... global warming... chewing up the clock.
Torturing terrorists at Gitmo? McCain 'would take responsibility.' He wpuld never use torture. It's about what kind of country we are.
Giuliani endorses 'every method they could think of' short of torture.
Romney rejects the Kobayashi Maru scenario. He wants to prevent the attacks. We can't close Gitmo. He won't use torture either - only enhanced interrogation techniques.
UN? Hell no! We're attacking whoever we need to attack. So say Brownback and Thompson - and Hunter. But he WOULD use torture. McCain opposes torture because then the bad guys would do nasty things to our servicemen and women. Glad we're avoiding that.
Gilmore chaired a commission... so he's all set to deal with 911. Huckabee is, too. His face is so boyish though...
Tancredo wants to call in Jack Bauer... good line
And it's a wrap...
President Thompson Answers Michael Moore
Anyone who can do this will fare just fine in GOP debates:
Background is here.
Important to note that this is far from the good-natured response Reagan would have had, of course...
Politics in New York
So my friend bought some 'political glasses' in New York, featuring some of the heroes of each party. Take a look at the Democrat glass below, and you'll see some well-known faces: FDR, Bobby Kennedy, JFK, Bill Clinton and Harry Truman -- as well as others like Barack Obama, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and Eleanor Roosevelt. A genuine stable of Democratic heroes.
But then you look at the GOP glass, and what conservative heroes are depicted? John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich, Katherine Harris, Joe McCarthy, Tom DeLay, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew...
Then I realized: she bought it in New York City. What did I expect?
Jerry Falwell, RIP
While certainly a fallible man, Rev. Falwell merits respect from all conservatives for his dogged willingness to cling to his convictions and stand athwart Progressive Liberalism shouting "Stop!" This writer extends his condolences to Rev. Falwell's congregants, the students and faculty of Liberty University, and all those who found a path towards truth in Falwell's defence of Christianity and traditional Christian morality.
An irony no doubt appreciated by Rev. Falwell was that his meteoric rise to prominence in the late 1970's was as much the result of the mainstream media seeking a public face to embody the populist resistance to the midcentury cultural revolution in social and especially sexual norms as it was due to Falwell's own success in presenting his traditionalist message through his Old Time Gospel Hour.
While Falwell became the public face of politically active Evangelical Christianity in the first few years after the movement finally reached the critical mass to force the mainstream media to notice, the long prehistory of Evangelical activism prior to the launch of Christian Voice and the Moral Majority in the late 1970's remains poorly understood by most. The caricatures of the agitprop play Inherit the Wind are the extent of most people's education on the issues involved in the collision of Progressivism, which became the official ideology/religion of the American ruling class of the 20th century, with the varied forms of American Christianity, most dramatically in the South.
While Falwell often implied that the Moral Majority grew in a few short years into a national clearinghouse of traditionalist activism, in fact the majority of his support remained regional and confessional, operating predominantly in the Southern communities with politically active Baptist churches. What catapulted Falwell to national attention more than anything was his fortunate ability to goad champions of bien-pensant progressivism or modernism into personal denunciations, which gave him media credibility far out of proportion to the actual organisational strength of the Moral Majority.
While tracing the complete trajectory of the Progressive movement from its post-Unitarian, transcendentalist origins in New England through its triumphant march, led by such men as Woodrow Wilson and John Dewey, through the institutions of culture in the bloody first half of the 20th century, to its nihilist exhaustion in cultural revolution in the 1960's, is beyond the scope of this essay, a brief tour of its great mid-century triumphs is necessary to appreciate Rev. Falwell's position in the media's estimation in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
Progressivism did not set out to make an enemy of Evangelicals. Indeed, they were long-time allies on many issues in American politics, two of the main pillars of the Democratic Party throughout the second half of the 19th century. Prohibition, it must be remembered, marked the last great accomplishment of the alliance of Progressivism and Evangelicalism. As Social Gospel thinking became predominant among mainline Protestant denominations at the beginning of the 20th century, though, the main currents of Progressivism fell out of dialogue with Evangelicalism, satisfying itself with the more like-minded religious allies it has maintained to the current day in such activities as the World Council of Churches and Call to Renewal.
The great drama of the breach between fundamentalist Evangelicalism and Progressivism was played out throughout the first half of the century, in such episodes as the Scopes Trial, the propaganda campaigns of Progressive writers such as Sinclair Lewis and H.L. Mencken, and the apparent triumph of the Progressives in the face of the crisis of the Great Depression. The thorough institutionalisation of the Progressive, technocratic style of governance brought about by the New Deal ultimately entailed the rationalisation of all aspects of public society, including education. The initial response of most Evangelical communities was introspection and advocacy of Christian withdrawal from the corruptions of the worldly, coupled with a proportionate alienation from the increasingly secularist mainstream organs of culture.
As the Progressive spirit matured into the received wisdom of the American ruling elites and into a majority on the Supreme Court at the end of the Roosevelt era and beginning of the Truman administration, though, the series of Supreme Court decisions which precipitated the complete rupture of the Evangelical-Progressive alliance drew increasing attention within Evangelical circles to the gap between the Evangelical worldview and the one which increasingly dominated American culture, politics, and the increasingly imperial judiciary.
Beginning with Everson v. Board of Education (1947) and McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), the Supreme Court embarked upon a series of decisions redefining the traditional relationship between religion and government throughout the United States. The flashpoint of most of the early Court rulings were educational questions, and while the Evangelicals resented the summary dictates of a distant body on these questions, the traditional Baptist suspicion of government involvement in questions of conscience moderated the Evangelical reaction.
When the Supreme Court moved beyond education into matters actively destructive of traditional public standards of morality, though, in such decisions as Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) and Roe v. Wade (1973), the Evangelicals were finally goaded into political action.
This long-simmering resentment and sense of betrayal of the populist alliance between Progressives and Evangelicals figure largely in the energy and urgency with which Evangelicals reentered the political arena in the 1970's. The spectacle of their reemergence after nearly a half-century of quiescence increased the media interest in their causes, and Rev. Falwell, for better or worse, found himself the spokesman best able and most willing to attempt to frame the political concerns of Evangelicals for a media audience almost completely ignorant of the community.
Democrats Look to Beijing Model
Denver will have all the homeless off the streets during the 2008 Democratic convention, and back on the streets again afterward:
Denver plans to clear downtown streets of the homeless during the Democratic National Convention here in 2008.
The city will open an emergency shelter normally used during winter deep freezes, and keep other shelters in the city open 24 hours during the August gathering. In addition, an army of outreach workers will fan out across downtown to persuade the homeless to come inside during the convention.
"Shelters will be open the entire time to make certain everyone can go inside and that the outreach folks have a place to take any person from the streets," said Roxane White, Denver's manager of human services.
White said the effort is motivated by security concerns and is not just an effort to spruce up Denver's image at a time when the city will be under a media spotlight.
You'd think the Democrats would avoid comparisons to Beijing's Olympic planning.
Roundup
Club for Growth LOVES Giuliani's record on fiscal issues in New York.
Barone points to an E-mail from an Urban Institute expert that suggests that 'soaking the rich' doesn't produce much.
Declaring war on the House GOP. It's garnering attention in lots of places.
Lowry suggests that Rudy's new tone on abortion is less than meets the eye. Conventional wisdom tells us he'll be forced to talk about it a lot at the GOP debate tonight. Can you handle a GOP debate without Chris Matthews?
Monday, May 14, 2007
Any Colour--As Long As It's Black
Consider the following exchange from ABC's Sunday talkfest (the one hosted by the diminutive Clinton operative, not the one hosted by the Cuomo operative), courtesy of Hotline On Call:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You've also said that with Social Security, everything should be on the table.
OBAMA: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising the retirement age?
OBAMA: Everything should be on the table.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising payroll taxes?
OBAMA: Everything should be on the table. I think we should approach it the same way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did back in 1983. They came together. I don't want to lay out my preferences beforehand, but what I know is that Social Security is solvable. It is not as difficult a problem as we're going to have with Medicaid and Medicare.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Partial privatization?
OBAMA: Privatization is not something that I would consider, and the reason is this: Social Security, I think, is -- that's the floor. That's the baseline. Social Security is that safety net that can't be frayed, and we shouldn't put at risk.
The posture of complete open-mindedness endures approximately 10 seconds, until a fundamental challenge to a liberal institution is contemplated. This really tells the tale of Obama's--and most other liberals'--invitation of non-liberals to "dialogue." We can discuss anything as long as no substantive challenge to the liberal worldview is even entertained.
This is like being invited to dialogue with Henry Ford about the colour of one's Model T.
Hagel Inches towards the Exit Sign
Gee, I wonder if he has anyone special in mind.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Dedicated to John McCain
Is this the McCain campaign theme song? OK - a little behind the news cycle, but still a great listen:
By the way, I've assembled a bunch of my favorite songs under my profile at YouTube - where you can also find a number of conservative and GOP video channels. Check it out.
And while we're at it, PopConservative points out that this is obviously the theme song for Kansas's own Sam Brownback:
Rudy's Comments at Houston Baptist
The Giuliani campaign has posted a video of his speech at Houston Baptist University. It's the one that contains his first comments on abortion since his team revealed that he was going to revise his approach to the issue. I have not watched it yet, but will at some point later:
Friday, May 11, 2007
Houston, We Have a Problem
Giuliani took yet another bite at the abortion apple in Houston today, near the site of Kennedy's address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in which he famously declared that in no way would his behaviour as President be influenced by such trifles as his religion and, you know, personal moral principles.
Giuliani today inverted Kennedy's formulation: on contentious moral issues such as abortion, Giuliani averred, government should take no action at all, leaving the moral decisions to individuals. While Kennedy proposed that war and hunger were not issues on which moral people disagreed on the need for government policy and that religion had no distinctive role in the moral understanding of these issues, Giuliani has declared that in cases where people reach differing moral conclusions, government policy must instead be limited (although he was unclear how completely) in deference to the conflicting moral structures of the population.
This clarifies Giuliani's thinking somewhat (unfortunately but unsurprisingly, in this writer's view), but it is not going to be enough. Giuliani will now be called on to explain to what extent he believes goverment can restrict or manage abortion, since people have conflicting moral opinions on that as well. Having already conceded the right of the states to legislate on matters such as partial-birth abortion and parental notification, he's going to have to explain where the "personal" component he believes mandates state inaction ends. On the basis of the speech delivered, it would seem that Giuliani as President would actively oppose the efforts of any state legislature to ban elective abortion entirely, for instance, which is some distance from merely respecting differences of opinion and having a personally permissive attitude--despite his pro-forma personal opposition to the procedure.
He's also going to need to demonstrate a rational framework for deciding where and on what basis morality and legality intersect, so that voters can have a sense for where his greatest political assets--his commitment to law and order and his defence of institutions of authority--will actually be engaged on issues of concern to them.
This writer has the impression that when Giuliani says abortion is something "something so very, very personal," he means it is something, like homosexual rights, centrally involved in the stability of the post-war sexual settlement (social indifference to illegitimacy, divorce, cohabitation, etc.) in which Giuliani is personally deeply invested in spite of the clear linkages between that settlement, the steady disintegration of the traditional American family structure and the most pressing social pathologies of our time.
Roundup
Bottled water drinkers are destroying the planet.
Giuliani's team is passing word that his makeover on abortion probably won't be quite as dramatic as it sounded in the New York Times. It is all as I have foreseen...
Does Romney use donations and giving as a political tool?
Hugh talks War on Terror with Angelina Jolie's dad.
Why do we mistrust immigration and trade?
Shock of shocks: the Dem Congress is no more popular than Bush.
Sperm donor sued for child support.
DeMint and Sessions lay down immigration reform principles.
Get ready for another earmark fight in the Senate.
A fairly dense discussion on the House floor of earmark rules. The gist (which occurs around the 4:30 mark) is that the new earmark rules instituted by Democrats require that committee reports include a list that purports to be a list of all the earmarks in the bill. However, it does not need to be an actual list of all the earmarks.
Did someone say 'The Birds?'
Re-enacting famous movie scenes.
I really liked the Terminator, but I don't expect I'll want to see three more movies and a TV series.
Ace on Lileks.
Little-noticed: Rudy's donations to pro-family groups.
What has Rudy got against the ferrets?
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Roundup
Will conservative Democrats vote with Republicans today on the House's version of the Iraq supplemental? It's a possibility - but it probably still means little. The Senate can't pass the House's two-month extension, so it even if it passes the House it's DOA in the Senate. Still, it would be a nice moral victory for the GOP to roll the majority.
Ace with a suggestion for the next Democratic debate. (Responding to this frightening item from John Edwards).
Mickey notes that David Brooks has picked up on a point I have made before: much as I love Ronald Reagan, we need to move past him.
Competing takes at the Spectator on Rudy's new stance on abortion. This one is closer to what I posted below. Welcome to Rudy, Mark II: jazz odyssey. Hope you enjoy the new direction.
Using the intel services to investigate climate change.
Jonathan Last on Spider Man 3 and George Lucas.
Is the Bush administration turning to September call-ups?
Democrats still learning how to run the House:
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Giuliani to be Forthright on Abortion
Frankly, I welcome this news:
After months of conflicting signals on abortion, Rudolph W. Giuliani is planning to offer a forthright affirmation of his support for abortion rights in public forums, television appearances and interviews in the coming days, despite the potential for bad consequences among some conservative voters already wary of his views, aides said yesterday.
At the same time, Mr. Giuliani’s campaign — seeking to accomplish the unusual task of persuading Republicans to nominate an abortion rights supporter — is eyeing a path to the nomination that would try to de-emphasize the early states in which abortion opponents wield a great deal of influence. Instead they would focus on the so-called mega-primary of Feb. 5, in which voters in states like California, New York and New Jersey are likely to be more receptive to Mr. Giuliani’s social views than voters in Iowa and South Carolina.
That approach, they said, became more appealing after the Legislature in Florida, another state they said would be receptive to Mr. Giuliani, voted last week to move the primary forward to the end of January.
The shift in emphasis comes as the Giuliani campaign has struggled to deal with the fallout from the first Republican presidential candidate debate, in which he gave halting and apparently contradictory responses to questions about his support for abortion rights.
We've noted many times that Giuliani has been inconsistent and contradictory on abortion. Let's start off by saying that if this means he is going to clear the air about what he thinks, so much the better. His problems in speaking about the issue were undercutting his effectiveness as a campaigner in general.
We'll see how much changes substantively. I don't imagine the Mayor is going to suddenly announce an intent to impose a pro-Wade litmus test on Supreme Court nominees. Nor does it seem likely that he will backtrack too much on the Hyde amendment. This could all wind up much more about style than substance.
In many ways, Mayor Giuliani is the strongest candidate in the GOP field. It's clear that he has tried to moderate his positions to appeal to social conservatives, and it wasn't working all that well.
Let's see the real Rudy Giuliani and find out whether his views are all that bad.
Pretty Funny
I'm told it's an oldie, but it's new to me. The sounds he makes are so crazy that it sounds almost staged:
Roundup
If a Republican made this error instead of Obama...
CNN poll shows public favors President's Iraq plan over that of the Democrats, and prefers a bill that has benchmarks and not a surrender date. But don't expect to read that on CNN.
Has John Murtha broken House ethics rules?
Is the conflict between public and private sector employees (and their unions) a defining one in modern politics? It is in France.
A strong field of challengers for Tim Walz.
The economics of the Godfather.
Senator Landrieu must be getting desperate about her re-eleciton prospects when she's making up legislation.
Watch Rudy's speech at Heritage.
Why Does AP Make Excuses for Obama in Its Lede?
Obama Overstates Kansas Tornado Deaths
By BOB LEWIS
The Associated Press
Tuesday, May 8, 2007; 11:33 PM
RICHMOND, Va. -- Barack Obama, caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech Tuesday, drastically overstated the Kansas tornadoes death toll, saying 10,000 had died. The death toll was 12.
Soft bigotry of low expectations? I do think that we'd have seen much more on this if any other leading candidate had so baldly and blandly misspoken on the matter of the life and death of thousands of Americans.
Giuliani's Abortion Problems
As others are noting, it doesn't really seem that the Mayor is being candid on abortion. In fact, in this interview with Laura Ingraham he pretty clearly implies that he did not agree with the initial Roe vs. Wade decision - a big concession for one who says he has no opinion on it now:
RG: ...and you'll understand this Laura. I would seek a judge who I believe is going to interpret the Constitution with intellectual honesty and try to determine what somebody else meant when they wrote things; what the framers meant, what the people who amended the Constitution meant or what Congress means at any particular time or the people...
LI: Right, but Mayor with all due respect you can't believe that the framers intended to write an implicit right to abort in our Constitution - you can't believe that?
RG: Nor do I think the framers wrote an exclusionary rule into our Constitution.. nor did the framers write in the Constitution that you should issue Miranda warnings...
LI: Well those are other issues...
RG: Now what has the Court done with those that - including...
LI: Well, make a lot of mistakes.
RG: What the Court has done is they've limited those decisions...
So he thought the initial decision was unfounded, but he has no opinion on it now? How likely is that?
And the Mayor says he hates abortion, but the Politico reports that he donated to Planned Parenthood multiple times. Is that probable?
If the Mayor wants to win the support of conservatives, it's critical that he come across as believable, sincere and trustworthy. These abortion answers aren't helping.
Note too that in the Ingraham interview, he continues to say that he doesn't agree with those who want to throw people in jail. It's my pet peeve...
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
IP Tackles the Tough Ones
Just remember - the Influence Peddler is the first to bring you the answer to this question: what would World War II have looked like if Hitler had had giant, heavily-armed, amphibious robots (which apparently were capable of walking from Berlin to Pearl Harbor)?
If you want to see the ending, part II is here.
Lowering Thompson's Expectations
John Mercurio and Amy Walter of Hotline TV examine Fred Thompson's 'disappointing' performance in his speech before the Orange County Republican club:
Disappointing though it may have been, I wonder if it doesn't help Fred a little that his potential supporters come back to earth a little. Thompson would have had to stage the second coming in order to satisfy the expectations of the GOP faithful. It might be better to have those hopes toned down just a little.
Roundup
The Democrats are the consensus party; the GOP is the party of diverse views.
Make sure to read Philip Klein's piece on Giuliani's appearance yesterday at Heritage. It sounds like he's beginning to flesh out his thinking about how to fight 'the war of terrorists against us:'
...In hindsight, the so-called "peace dividend" of the 1990s was a big mistake, he said, and noted that even with the Bush defense buildup, the U.S. is only spending 4.1 percent of its GDP on defense, which compares to 6.2 percent during the height of the Reagan era. Giuliani called for a much larger military, an additional 10 combat brigades more than President Bush proposed...
In a proposal that is sure to be met with skepticism among non-interventionist conservatives, Giuliani called for establishing a "hybrid" military/civilian force that would deal with the nation building aspect of modern conflicts, saying one of the lessons from the Iraq War was that our military is trained for combat and we don't have a force to deal with redevelopment.
Should the US pay reparations for atrocities committed by the Japanese during their occupation of Guam?
Barack Obama is revealing himself more and more to be an old-line political liberal. And he really has very little understanding of economics. Why only pay $3 billion to retool plants? Why not give $20 billion so they can build great cars and sell them cheap, too.
Victor Matus on why Carmela reads Barnes.
A 'rival campaign' tips the Politico that Giuliani & spouse gave to Planned Parenthood at least 6 times during the 1990s.
Democrats move forward with largest tax increase in American history.
The coalition investigates and destroys an IED factory:
Feds Bust Plot to Attack Fort Dix
If history is any guide, Allah will do a great job of covering it here.
As of this writing, it's reported that the would-be attackers were (at least) inspired by watching Osama videos. They don't sound like the sharpest crayons in the box however:
The would-be attackers, ethnic Albanians who had been under surveillance by the FBI for months, practiced by shooting paintball guns and real weapons in a rural area of the Poconos, one source said. They also allegedly watched jihadist videos in which Osama bin Laden urged them toward martyrdom.
“They were prepared to die,” said the law enforcement source. “We became increasingly convinced this was for real and these guys were ready to roll.”…
The men - several of whom were in the same family - had videotaped their practice sessions in the Poconos, the source said. That videotape, in which they railed against America, led to their arrests.
The men made the mistake of bringing it to a retail store seeking to get a copy burned to a DVD, according to one of the sources. A store employee who later watched the tape called the FBI who began immediately investigating.
Sometimes you have to be amazed at the mistakes that people make.
Coolest Show Ever?
The other night I caught Man vs. Wild on the Discover channel. It features a former British SAS officer who is stranded somewhere in the wild and has to find his way to civilization. Contrived? Of course. But very cool. Check out this highlight reel - but don't watch if you're not prepared to see a guy eat a live snake and raw... zebra:
And it probably drives animal rights activists nuts. (Video highlights are here).
Monday, May 07, 2007
MKH on the Debate
A day late, but not a dollar short, Mary Katharine Ham and Katie Favazza assess the first GOP debate:
Amusing comments on McCain. Also, Favazza's comment that she has concerns with Giuliani's statements on social issues make me wonder: is this becoming a standard throw-away line among conservatives?
Let me preface by saying that I have concerns with Giuliani's stances on social issues. I have many friends who do as well. That said, it seems as if every conservative who professes support for the Mayor must first say, 'well, I have concerns about his views on abortion' or something similar. There's no specific person whose sincerity I doubt, but it's become so prevalent that I suspect some are no longer saying it because they believe it, but because its become de rigeur to say.
Perhaps Giuliani's conservative support is stronger than would seem to be the case?
Obama-Squatters and the Liberation of Value
As the Obama camp continues to sift through the media fallout of their decision to wrest control of the Barack Obama myspace site from its founder, Joe Anthony, I was reminded of the insights of Hernando de Soto’s study of the differences between capital-accumulating cultures and the rest of the world, The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else
De Soto’s thesis, well-advanced, is that a major distinction between successful, capital-accumulating societies and the rest of the world is the body of processes capital-accumulating societies have to recognize and record the creation of value, regardless of the legal framework in which the value is created. The classic example to which de Soto returns throughout his book is the status of squatters during the settlement of the American West. While the Homestead Act resolved most of the confrontations, the right of squatters to fair compensation for improvements made upon non-legally possessed property upon their eviction in favour of legal tenants was a crucial facilitator to the settlement and development of all the wealth-creating potential of the United States from the earliest colonial settlements down to the current day.
While the right of legal titleholders to the land is ultimately defended in the U.S., the rights of squatters to compensation for improvements allowed the value the squatters created to be recognized and liberated to serve as collateral for further investments and improvements, creating a virtuous cycle of settlement, improvement and development which allowed the U.S. to bootstrap itself successfully, with the initial foreign investment primarily from Great Britain, into a major industrial power within 100 years, in contrast to the many other, failed colonial or neocolonial investment schemes undertaken by the British at the same time in other parts of the world—most notably in Latin America and Africa.
What the Obama campaign has done, instead, is to strand the social capital created by Mr. Anthony’s efforts, resulting in the necessity of recreating the friend list and creating a completely unnecessary media distraction which undermines Obama’s efforts to portray himself as the champion of the little guy and advocate for the efforts of grassroots social activism. For $39,000, all of this could have been avoided, leading one to question whether Obama’s campaign truly understands either economics or public relations.
Roundup
Read up on the Milbloggers conference.
Zawahiri explains how Al Qaeda is failing.
Rob covers the Top Ten ways Nancy Pelosi can change the House. It's a good list.
Allah finds a video of 9/11 truthers.
John Fund offers a very good profile of Sarkozy. Daniel Drezner is not overly optimistic. Fausta has good commentary as well.
How little respect does Bush get from the press? Jules notes one story.
Flying through a thunderstorm in Iraq - scary and cool, with pilot's naration. It's nine minutes long, but definitely worth watching:
From the Onion: do you remember life before the Segway?
In The Know: Do You Remember Life Before The Segway?
Scientists convinced man can see the future.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Awkward Car Pool
Something light for a Sunday night. I don't see too much of Saturday Night Live, but thought this was pretty funny:
Alec Baldwin and Kristin Wiig do a great job in this one.
Regime Change, French Style
Remember the attention the media gave to the defeats of Bush allies Jose Maria Aznar in Spain and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy?
Well, do you think anyone notice that Britain, Germany and now France are ruled by leaders who want closer ties with America/George Bush, and/or who back Bush on Iraq? Will that get the attention that the defeats of Berlusconi and Aznar got?
Are you expecting a spate of 'Europe turns to Bush' stories?
Update: Looks like I was beaten to the story, anyway.
Nuclear Power Making a Comeback
The TVA's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant is coming back online:
All signs from regulators and operators point to a startup within days of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Unit 1 reactor at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Ala., culminating a five-year, $1.8 billion restoration.
Mothballed since 1985, TVA's oldest reactor was the scene of a major fire sparked by a candle three decades ago. It has been reborn as a modern 1,200-megawatt atomic generator capable of lighting 650,000 homes.
The reactor is the last of three Browns Ferry units designed in the 1960s, run in the 1970s, idled in the 1980s, and revived since the 1990s. It will be this country's first "new" nuclear generator of the 21st century -- the 104th active commercial reactor.
Though no one has applied to build a new nuclear plant in the United States since the 1970s, several are now being planned.
It will be interesting to see to what degree nuclear power will be embraced by the environmental community, and whether it will lead to nuclear power advocacy among leaders in both parties.
Headline of the Day
Clemens to the Yanks. Wang, Clemens, Pettitte, Mussina -- there's a top 4 that can get you to the playoffs.
Second biggest headline of the day: Sarkozy wins the French presidency.
Meet the New Dem Power Brokers
The NYT looks at the anti-war coalition which has forced the Congressional Democratic leadership into ever more dramatic anti-war stances. It is they who pushed for the date-certain for withdrawal, and are now pushing against a full-funding measure with benchmarks:
Every morning, representatives from a cluster of antiwar groups gather for a conference call with Democratic leadership staff members in the House and the Senate.
Shortly after, in a cramped meeting room here, they convene for a call with organizers across the country. They hash out plans for rallies. They sketch out talking points for “rapid response” news conferences. They discuss polls they have conducted in several dozen crucial Congressional districts and states across the country.
Over the last four months, the Iraq deliberations in Congress have lurched from a purely symbolic resolution rebuking the president’s strategy to timetables for the withdrawal of American troops. Behind the scenes, an elaborate political operation, organized by a coalition of antiwar groups and fine-tuned to wrestle members of Congress into place one by one, has helped nudge the debate forward.
On Iraq at least, it seems that Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid have largely subsumed their leadership to this council. From their stance after election day - where they wanted at all costs to do nothing to take responsibility for what happened in Iraq - they have been pushed to ever more novel ways to end the war. And if they could do it without cutting off funds for the troops, it would have happened long ago.
It's this coalition that's responsible for the lack of progress on energy and a host of other issues that the Democrats wanted to address.
