Can Bush be Blackmailed into Bigger Spending?

Yesterday I highlighted the latest pieces from Bob Novak and Fred Barnes on the hope among Republicans in Washington that the President will help restore the party's fiscal conservative image by vetoing bloated spending bills. Roll Call says that Democrats will try to make it politically difficult:

A veto would give the majority a golden opportunity to blast Republicans for shortchanging local police, fire departments and even border security. And if Bush has a change of heart and signs the bill, Democrats say, they will be able to take credit for security upgrades that 150 Congressional Republicans voted against on the floor.

“We win if he signs it, I think they lose if he vetoes it,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “What they are simply doing is denying the Department of Homeland Security the funds necessary to protect America. We’ll certainly let their constituents know that they failed to provide the resources...”

Democrats expressed hope that Bush would reconsider the threat to veto the bill in light of his offer to add billions in emergency spending for border security as part of a deal to restart immigration legislation, but that seems highly unlikely.

House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (Fla.) said Republicans believe they have credibility on security and can successfully wage a veto fight over the bill, which the administration feels is bloated with $2.1 billion in unnecessary spending.

“Republicans created the Department of Homeland Security, Republicans created the TSA, Republicans have had to listen to whining by the Democrats to everything we have done,” Putnam said. “There is no downside to vetoing a bill or sustaining a veto on a bill that prevents the border fence from being constructed and doubles the increase in spending beyond the president’s request.”

The party’s conservative wing has been itching for a fight.

“I would love for the president to veto this bill and take this fight to the American people,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Texas), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee. “America needs to know the Republicans stand for accountability and fiscal responsibility.”

So on both defense spending and on immigration, the President faces threats -- implicit or explicit -- that he won't get the spending he backs increased funding in other areas. This is one area where it would be great to be able to take advantage of the 'bully pulpit,' and talk to the American people. But with the President's approval ratings where they are now, that doesn't seem to be an option.

Unless the President can rally the public to his point of view, he may be faced with a no-win situation: back higher spending across the board, or lose the spending he wants. He needs to start highlighting fiscal issues now, and start explaining why there's no need for the dramatic increases the Democrats want, and why it's unacceptable to underfund defense and border security. As long as the latter is NOT part of an effort to sell amnesty, he ought to have no problem securing the support of the conservative base for both of these efforts.

Navy Does Hey Ya

Those Navy guys sure must have it easy. No time for such antics in the Army:

glumbert.com - Navy does Hey Ya

Kidding, kidding...

The Battle of the Belts

Bill Roggio takes a look at the offensive underway in the belts of insurgent strongholds outside Baghdad:

After months of preparation, the Baghdad Security Operation is now fully underway. The operations in the Baghdad belts and greater Diyala come as U.S. and Iraqi forces continue to establish the Joint Security Stations and Combat Outposts inside Baghdad, and clear and hold the neighborhoods. At last count, forty percent of Baghdad is now considered secure. Major, mass casualty suicide attacks inside the capital have been few and far between the past several weeks, while mortar attacks, IED strikes and small scale bombings and shootings are still a major threat.

Securing the belts will allow the Iraqi and Coalition forces to continue to secure Baghdad, and reduce al Qaeda and the insurgency’s access to weapons caches, bases of operations and support from outside the city. The next step is a political solution: resolution on key issues such as reconciliation, corruption, oil laws and adjusting the constitution must follow. These are contentious issues within the Iraqi government. But the security environment must be established to provide the political space needed to address these issues.

Now let's hope for more improvement on the political side.

GOP Looking at Wealth of Candidates Against Carney

We've looked before at the vulnerable Democratic freshmen whose re-election races will help determine whether Nancy Pelosi remains Speaker of the House, or returns to her former job as Minority Leader. The Politico reports that the GOP looks likely to have two great candidates against one of the most heavily-targeted of the new Democrats -- Chris Carney:

From the outset of the 2008 cycle, Republicans have viewed U.S. Attorney Tom Marino as their favored candidate to run against freshman Rep. Chris Carney (D-Pa.). As a political outsider with law enforcement credentials, Marino seemed well-positioned to craft an independent image and emerge as the party's front-runner.

But within the past few weeks, a possible second candidate has impressed Republican officials and could create a battle for the nomination against one of the Democrats' more vulnerable freshmen.

Dan Meuser, the president of Pride Mobility Products, a wheelchair manufacturing company in Exeter, Pa., is leaning toward entering the race. He is no stranger to Washington, having spent time before Congress lobbying on behalf of his company and advocating for disability rights. And he is positioned to announce his candidacy before Marino, sometime within the next month.

I'll be attending a session at the NRCC today, organized by Rob Bluey. Hopefully I'll learn more about some of the races to watch for 2008.

Exclusive: Thompson Gets Thatcher's Backing

You have to hand it to Fred. He has a sense of theme, tone and theatrics that's matched by no one in the GOP field. Unable to seek Ronald Reagan's endorsement, he's going for the next-best thing -- the backing of Lady Margaret Thatcher:

Fred Thompson, the actor and former Tennessee senator who is expected to announce next month he is running for president, flew to London on Monday to meet Margaret Thatcher and deliver a foreign policy speech, his advisers tell The Politico.

Thompson's advisers aim to use the London events to bolster his foreign policy credentials and elevate him above the increasingly contentious fray of the GOP race.

On Wednesday, he will pose for photos with Thatcher, which his advisers hope will enhance his support among devotees of former President Ronald Reagan.

The Influence Peddler has learned -- and can report exclusively -- that Lady Thatcher will say extremely gracious things about Senator Thompson. Sources close to the Senator say...

OK, so we don't have any sources that tell us that. However, it's the only possible outcome here. Any lawyer worth his salt knows that you don't ask a question you don't already know the answer to. In the same way, Fred is not going to the UK to meet with Lady Thatcher without having some good sense in advance of what she will say about him. It's bound to be good. It's likely to fall short of an endorsement, since such a statement would be seen as meddling by a foreign power in US affairs.

Thompson's running a sharp campaign, and he's not even in the race yet.

Update: Dale Franks notes that Thompson now leads in the futures market. Does that make him the favorite?

Are We Running Out of Oil

The 'Oil Depletion Analysis Centre' -- which I know nothing about, but sounds like a group with an agenda -- says that as soon as 2011, world oil production will peak. From there, reserves will decline and prices will climb. This contention is disputed by BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy:

Colin Campbell, the head of the depletion centre, said: “It’s quite a simple theory and one that any beer drinker understands. The glass starts full and ends empty and the faster you drink it the quicker it’s gone.”

Dr Campbell, is a former chief geologist and vice-president at a string of oil majors including BP, Shell, Fina, Exxon and ChevronTexaco. He explains that the peak of regular oil - the cheap and easy to extract stuff - has already come and gone in 2005. Even when you factor in the more difficult to extract heavy oil, deep sea reserves, polar regions and liquid taken from gas, the peak will come as soon as 2011, he says.

I am not an alarmist, so when reading articles like this I can never help but notice 'weasel phrases' like 'as soon as 2011.' There are lots of years after 2011 -- some of them are quite far off. I won't worry too much until I see the phrase 'within the next x years.'

The bottom line:

What no one, not even BP, disagrees with is that demand is surging. The rapid growth of China and India matched with the developed world’s dependence on oil, mean that a lot more oil will have to come from somewhere. BP’s review shows that world demand for oil has grown faster in the past five years than in the second half of the 1990s. Today we consume an average of 85 million barrels daily. According to the most conservative estimates from the International Energy Agency that figure will rise to 113 million barrels by 2030.

Two-thirds of the world’s oil reserves lie in the Middle East and increasing demand will have to be met with massive increases in supply from this region.

'What no one disagrees on' is that demand is surging. Sounds like we don't agree on all that much.

Further, the article appears to completely ignore petroleum reserves contained in Canada's tar sands and in shale oil in the US. It's been estimated that those reserves become economic at a price of somewhere around $70/barrel. So if prices climb to $100/barrel or so, a substantial new stream comes online.

Color me interested and mildly concerned, but I won't panic for a while.

Warming up for July 4th

As Independence Day approaches, no doubt the thoughts of most readers turn to one subject: the Nathan's Famous July Fourth International Hot Dog Eating Contest at Coney Island. Today one contender earning attention is Juliet Lee, who ate 26 dogs and buns in 12 minutes at a qualifier in Virginia:

Juliet Lee, a 107-pound salon manager from Maryland, demolished the competition in the 5th Annual Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest by downing 26 franks and buns in 12 minutes.

The contest at the MacArthur Center was a qualifying event for Nathan's international competition, which ESPN will televise live from Coney Island, N.Y., on July 4.

Lee, 41, was the only woman in Saturday's field of 13. Her 26-dog meal was substantially more than the men flanking her and weighing in at 360 and 359 pounds could manage.

Now if you're a fan of competitive eating, this whets your appetite. But you know that impressive as this is, Ms. Lee won't even rate an asterisk in the competition with a total like this. That's because the record -- set by Takeru Kobayashi last year -- is 53.75 hot dogs and buns in 12 minutes. Kobayashi has won 6 straight titles, and the highlight of this year's event will be his rematch against Joey Chestnut, who ate 52 in last year's contest.

Are you underwhelmed? Afraid to invest your hopes in Chestnut after he couldn't live up to the hype last year? Don't be. Chestnut recently broke Kobayashi's record -- by eating a stunning 59.5 hot dogs and buns in 12 minutes. If he's in that kind of zone on July 4, it's hard to see how Kobayashi can match him.

Who doesn't love competition among world-class athletes?

Run, Mike, Run!

The New York Post catches NY Mayor Mike Bloomberg keeping the kind of travel schedule usually reserved for presidential candidates:

Mayor Bloomberg is on pace to break the travel record for any recent occupant of City Hall, a Post analysis has found.

Records show the mayor - who happens to be swinging through San Francisco and Los Angeles starting today - has visited 20 U.S. cities in the last 18 months...

Barnard College Professor Esther Fuchs, who served as a special adviser to the mayor in his first term, suggested Bloomberg has a different agenda: to thrust urban concerns into the forefront of the national debate.

Certainly, the mayor has spotlighted the ease of obtaining illegal weapons, by lining up mayors across America in his coalition to toughen gun laws.

Bloomberg recently addressed a crowd of more than 1,000 at Google, and touched on a number of national issues:

Bloomberg seemed to side with President Bush when he decried "an anti-immigration policy that is a disgrace" and called for a more open migration policy. And he dismissed the notion of deporting illegal immigrants as part of immigration reform.

"We need to recognize we're not going to deport 12 million people already here," he said. "Let's get serious, we don't have an army big enough to do that, it would be devastating to our economy, it would be the biggest mass deportation of people in the world."

The mayor said there had been too little discussion of health care and education on the campaign trail, and later blamed journalists for not asking hard enough questions of the candidates.

In one of his harshest comments, Bloomberg dismissed creationism—the theory that the universe was created by intelligent design—mistakenly calling it "creationalism." The remark made plain that Bloomberg has no interest in running in the Republican presidential primary, where outreach to Christian conservatives is critical.

A lifelong liberal Democrat, former Mayor of New York, who has a billion dollars, supports gun control and an amnesty for illegal immigrants, and who disdains Christian conservatives. I can't think of better news for the Republicans in 2008.

I'd offer to donate, but I know he doesn't need the money. What else can I do to support his candidacy?

Tightening the Rules on China Exports

The administration has adopted a final rule for export of items that may contribute to China's military buildup. According to the Financial Times, this represents a 'narrower expansion' of the licensing regime than was proposed in overly-broad early drafts:

The US has tightened restrictions on exports of technology to China in a move aimed at curtailing Beijing’s military modernisation.

The Bush administration has posted on its website its “China Policy Rule”, which would expand the number of military end-use items for which US companies would need licences to export to China. Some industry groups and trade lawyers argue the rule is counter-productive. They say new procedures are very cumbersome and add that the expanded restrictions will hurt US industry by prompting China to buy an increasing number of technologies from Europe.

Any expansion is likely to have the effect of encouraging firms to do business abroad if possible, to avoid a cumbersome regime that other nations do not use.

Update: I note that Business Week presents a better summary of how this will work, including the 'validated end user' concept, which basically involves firms and entities presumed to be 'safe' for export, unless otherwise demonstrated:

Items that will be subject to the new military end-use controls include aircraft and aircraft engines, avionics and inertial navigation systems, lasers, depleted uranium, underwater cameras and propulsion systems, certain composite materials and some telecommunications equipment that can be used for space communications and air defense systems.

A Commerce statement said that the list was developed with input from experts at the departments of Commerce, Defense and State and was designed to target militarily useful items that are not widely available on world markets. U.S. export controls are administered by Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security.

The new validated end-user program will facilitate sales of U.S.-made products to trusted customers in such areas as electronics, semiconductor equipment and chemicals.

This tighter regime for export to China is the sort of thing that might give many conservatives 'warm fuzzies' toward the Bush administration. How fitting that they seem completely unaware of it. Yet another area where the White House has fallen down on their relations with the base.

Bad News for Passport Applicants

The Washington Post reports on the significant backlog of passport applications:

The demand soared at the beginning of the year, as travelers sought to comply with a new rule requiring passports for all U.S. citizens flying within the Western Hemisphere.

And that demand has created a backlog of about 500,000 applications that have been pending for more than 12 weeks, spawning complaints by travelers who saw their trips in jeopardy. It also highlighted once again how post-Sept. 11 laws ripple from Capitol Hill across the country.

To ease the strain, the requirement was modified June 8, allowing those who have applied for, but not received, passports to reenter using other documents.

Harty's "not happy" with processing times, which are running from 10 to 12 weeks, instead of the usual six to eight. "The notion of customer service is a sacred part of what we do, and part of a long and very proud tradition," she said...

Travelers can go to http://www.travel.state.gov and print out proof of their application. Entry rules to countries vary, however, and travelers may also look up those requirements on the Web site.

I think people are starting to become aware of the problem. That's good, because not having a passport has become a major impediment to travel abroad.

And Government Executive says that things aren't likely to get better in the near future. That's because next year you'll need a passport for land and sea travel to Mexico, Canada, Bermuda and the Caribbean:

The State Department may be overwhelmed trying to process the new applications that have rolled in due to regulations requiring passports for air travel to Mexico, Canada, Bermuda or the Caribbean, but the Homeland Security Department says that shouldn't tempt Congress to delay rules scheduled to go into effect starting next year that also would require passports for land and sea travel to these destinations. A growing move in Congress to delay the land and sea requirement "is just simply not acceptable to us," DHS spokesman Russ Knocke tells USA Today. Right now, he notes, border agents have to examine up to 8,000 different forms of identification that people can present when trying to get into the country.

More info here as well.

Outsourcing Not so Popular in India

This strikes me as something that's ultimately likely to encourage faster development in India, as opposed to leading to a reduction in western influence:

Not helping matters is the widely used policy among India's outsourcers that requires call center workers who have direct contact with U.S. customers to adopt names like Joe and Peggy. With these kinds of rules in place, it's hardly surprising that some of the more reactionary voices in India see in outsourcing the second coming of the Raj -- this time with an American twist.

The growth of outsourcing in India has been so meteoric that few have stopped to ponder its cultural implications, but now the dust is settling. There's certainly no real danger of a Taliban-style reaction shutting down the whole industry, but even modest reforms -- say, laws that would require Indian outsourcers to operate on an Indian holiday schedule and not an American one -- could be felt by businesses in the U.S.

Will the next wave of foreign direct investment in India be more tailored to the country itself?

Testing Michael Moore

Rob at Say Anything notes that Michael Moore says that he has no problem with people downloading and sharing movies on the internet:

“I don’t agree with the copyright laws and I don’t have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people,” said Moore when asked about pirating. “I make these books and shows because I want things to change, so the more people that get to see them the better, so I’m happy when that happens. I think information and art, ideas should be shared.”

With that as prelude, Rob has obtained a leaked copy of Moore's new movie 'Sicko,' and posted it on his site. If you want to watch it, head over there and be entertained.

Cognitive Dissonance Watch

Roll Call reports that Congressional Democrats are looking at tightening House rules. Seems they're tired of the Republicans tying up the House floor and forcing openness on earmarks, and winning votes on 'motions to recommit:'

While Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) similarly defended the House majority’s response to GOP protests Friday — “We’ve made a commitment to greater openness” — he suggested that Democrats could strike back more forcibly in future confrontations.

“This is not a dictatorship,” he said, but added: “If there becomes a sense that people are blatantly abusing the process, there will be corrections...”

While lawmakers are not placing blame on Hoyer, who oversees the House floor for Democrats, some rank-and-file Members have begun to call for revisions to the chamber’s rules process.

“I don’t think there’s anyone questioning his ability. ... That’s something we can’t control if they’re going to abuse open rules,” the Democrat added. “We may very well have to examine the open rule process. ... There’s a growing anger on our side.”

Meanwhile, other Democrats -- in the same article -- tell Roll Call that the Republican wins are a sign of a healthy and open debate, and something that the Democrats are proud of:

Democrats argue that the motions to recommit are inconsequential victories of little legislative substance and counter that they do not rule their Caucus with the same iron discipline that they so often criticized Republicans for using.

“To vote no just for the sake of voting no, that was the style of the past,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), who asserted Democrats offer a “more open leadership style.” He later added: “Why vote against a motion to recommit that you agree with?”...

“Under the previous leadership, this place was locked up tight. ... I don’t think that’s healthy,” McGovern said.

It'll be interesting to see how they square this circle.

Barnes & Novak: Bush Looking Forward to Vetoes

Both Fred Barnes and Bob Novak write on the expectation that the President will veto multiple spending bills this year. But Barnes nails down the achilles heel of the strategy, and one that may lead the President to give up the party's push to reclaim its reputation for stinginess. Novak first:

...Bush plans to veto the Homeland Security appropriations bill nearing final passage, followed by vetoes of eight more money bills sent him by the Democratic-controlled Congress.

That constitutes a veto onslaught of historic proportions from a president who did not reject a single bill during his first term. Of the 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008, only three will be signed by the president in the form shaped by the House. What's more, Bush correctly claimed he has the one-third plus one House votes needed to sustain these vetoes...

Barnes on the other hand, identifies the point where the rubber meets the road:

Bush and congressional Republicans learned a painful lesson from the 2006 election: Excessive spending made them politically vulnerable. Now they are unified in turning the tables on Democrats and attacking them as big spenders. The Democratic budget has "given us an ability to recast the differences between the parties again," said a House Republican leader.

Credit for Bush's emergence as a hardliner is shared by two White House officials, chief of staff Josh Bolten and budget chief Rob Portman, a former Republican House member. Bolten was Portman's predecessor in the budget post, one that usually leads to a strong preference for limits on spending and austere budgets.

Still, Republicans worry Bush may split with them when the showdown comes between the White House and the Democrats. The president may be offered full funding of his defense budget in exchange for the higher domestic spending favored by Democrats. That's an offer Bush probably can't refuse.

The administration better be thinking about another way to find the few billion more needed to fully fund defense, because if they chicken out on vetoes after having raised expectations, there will be a lot of disappointment in the blathersphere. If they really want to regain their brand on fiscal responsibility, adherence to some of these spending limits is necessary, but not sufficient.

Happy Father's Day

Thanks for everything, dad. You're the greatest.



Hat Tip: Ace

The Value of the 'Blathersphere'

I've commented before that politicians ought to think of bloggers as more or less synonomous with 'primary voters.' I'm sure it's not a perfect guide, but I bet it's the best weather vane available. Ace talks about it here:

It's that blogs actually do, somewhat accurately, reflect public opinion. And better than polls, too, at least in this respect: While a poll might tell you that sixty-nine percent of the public is against this amnesty-without-security bill and only 20% in favor, that piece of information is, by itself, not terribly meaningful politically. Why? Because the public is against a lot of things, but doesn't really care about them. On many issues -- like bankruptcy reform -- you can probably afford to defy public preferences and give a sop to banks and creditors, because while the public may not support such "reform," neither is it politically animated about it. You can ignore public opinion because public opinion simply isn't very strong. No one's losing votes over the bankruptcy bill.

But sometimes citizens are so incensed about an issue they are actually animated to change their voting (and donating, volunteering, etc.) behavior based on a politician's position on that issue. It's not just numbers, it's intensity; and while some polls do indeed query about intensity, blogs and comments left by voting citizens are important gauge of such intensity.

Quite right.

Reid Threatens Weekend Session

I always wonder why Congressional leaders 'threaten' to do things that will be politically popular. Don't they realize that the first one to insist on an end to earmarks and the occasional weekend session will climb 5 or 10 points in the polls?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today he might have to pull the energy bill off the floor next week to revive a comprehensive immigration overhaul, although he vowed to complete both before closing shop for the July Fourth recess.

“If this [energy] debate doesn’t speed up, we’ll have to move to end debate,” the Nevada Democrat said, warning Republicans not to stall progress on either bill. “If they do, Democrats are prepared to work through the weekends and the July 4 district work period to accomplish our goals.”

Whichever party is the smart one ought to insist on doing the top 5 things that are now being threatened.

The Perfect Pizza

Glenn opines on what makes it best. No indication of whether deep-frying is acceptable or not:


Mmmm... healthy.

Top that Chicago!

Jeferson Memorial Sinking

So reports the Washington Post:

Underground, though, the problems may be huge: Slowly, almost imperceptibly, parts of the complex seem to be sinking into the mud.

It's probably not endangering the majestic 32,000-ton domed structure itself, although it's being monitored for movement.

The big problem seems to be a section of the sea wall that is breaking from the memorial's plaza and settling into the Tidal Basin. The "ring road" along the memorial's circumference also seems to be shifting, officials say.

Such movement is an alarming -- and chronic -- problem at the Jefferson Memorial, which was built in the late 1930s and early 1940s atop pilings and caissons sunk into an artificial mud flat that is about 100 feet deep. Engineers have been struggling for decades to keep everything firmed up.

It reminds me of the Cathedral on the Zocalo in Mexico City, which has been sinking for many years. It's my understanding that after extensive work over more than a decade, it's now sinking at a uniform rate throughout.

I guess that's progress.

Air Force Wants New Stealth Bomber for 2018

From Government Executive:

A senior Air Force official on Wednesday said the Air Force plans to leverage existing technologies developed for the F-22 Raptor fighter jet to create and field a next-generation, long-range bomber over the next decade.

The service, which hopes to fly the bomber by 2018, likely will use the F-22's stealth and maneuverability capabilities when developing the new aircraft, Lt. Gen. Robert Elder, commander of the 8th Air Force at Barksdale Air Force Base, La., said during a breakfast with reporters. The F-22 features fifth-generation stealth technologies.

The photo is of the X51a hypersonic demonstrator which, according to The Space Review, may be a precursor to the next generation of high-speed bombers.

Evil Dead/Flagpole Sitta

For all you Bruce Campbell fans out there - you know who you are. This is very well done. But since it's Evil Dead, there's blood and gore. So don't blame me if you click.

It's like peanut butter and jelly, folks:

Novak: Time to Get the Popcorn

Sit back and enjoy the show. That's the way I read it anyway. He says that liberal Democrats in the House are growing restive with the moderate course Speaker Pelosi is charting.

It's all in the eye of the beholder of course. But the problem in assessing the agenda is that there's not much 'agenda' to go on. In any case, Republicans can only be optimistic when they read of dissension within the caucus:

UNHAPPY WITH NANCY

The powerful left wing of the House Democratic Caucus is unhappy with Speaker Nancy Pelosi for being too attentive to a handful of moderate members, especially those elected last year from normally Republican districts.

Protesting liberals grumble Pelosi has been too cautious setting policy during six months in the majority, especially regarding the Iraq war. The response is that Democrats will revert to minority status in the House if they stray too far to the left.

A footnote: Some liberal Democratic House members returned after the Memorial Day recess to tell colleagues how they were assailed by normally staunch supporters during town meetings, complaining not nearly enough had been done to end the Iraq intervention.

Also read Novak for news on the possible alliance between liberal Democrat Mike Bloomberg and moderate Democrat David Boren, in a possible independent bid for the Presidency.

BAE Gets OK from Congress, Investigation Notwithstanding

In recent years there has been a strong trend toward consolidation in the defense/aerospace sector. But both the Pentagon and Congress have become increasingly concerned that the diminishing universe of defense contractors reduces competition and forces up prices. One notable exception to this trend however, is BAE Systems, which was formed by the merger of British Aerospace North America with Marconi North America, .

BAE North America has effectively shed much of the baggage that limited its ability to compete with Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and other large home-grown companies. Most notable, perhaps, was BAE's stake in Airbus, and the controversy over government subsidies to that firm. BAE seemed to steer clear of any related repercussions when it sold its stake. Now comes word that the Congressional committees of jurisdiction have consulted with BAE and decided to allow the company to complete the sale of some materials and technologies to foreign governments:

Congressional aides said the House and Senate foreign relations committees had lifted the technology transfer blocks after BAE North America said none of the assets involved was the subject of the abortive investigation by Britain’s Serious Fraud Office, which was probing allegations the company bribed Saudi officials to win work worth billions of pounds over 20 years.

The decision frees up a proposal by Mojave, a BAE business unit, to transfer two A-4N Skyhawk aircraft to the German air force. Other deals involve a technical assistance agreement to upgrade systems on Australian F/A-18 fighter jets, and a plan by BAE and Japanese partner companies to make transponders.

It's interesting that notwithstanding the constant debate over the outsourcing of jobs, and the security threat of importing defense components from foreign firms, Congress is encouraging the increased participation of BAE in the U.S. market. One reason might be that as a company with British origin, BAE is not really seen as foreign, in the same way that a Russian or other firm might. (It must be noted of course, that BAE North America has its HQ in Maryland, so it is technically an American company, anyway.)

Changing Political Times

Have you grown used to political activism by groups purporting to represent the views of African Americans, latinos, Italian Americans, Irish Americans, gays and lesbians, and many others? Well, get ready for a new kind of activism -- representing a 'prized minority'- Indian Americans:

The chairman of the bipartisan US India Political Action Committee, Sanjay Puri, has written to Barack Obama, expressing his concern about the reports that "your staff may be engaging in the worst kind of anti-Indian American stereotyping.'

Puri's letter (.pdf) responds to an Obama campaign opposition research document (.pdf) that was obtained by the Clinton campaign, and given to the New York Times. The document is headlined "HILLARY CLINTON (D-PUNJAB)’S PERSONAL FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL TIES TO INDIA" and links Clinton's financial support from Indian-American donors, and the Clintons' personal investments, to the fact that she "has drawn criticism from anti-offshoring groups for her vocal support of Indian business and unwillingness to protect American jobs."

"It's all about the money," the document asserts of Clinton, who co-chairs the Senate India Caucus.

Puri, in his letter, asks that Obama "respond directly" to the reports of the memo, and "let us know if indeed your staff is promoting these hurtful stereotypes."

Puri said in an interview that the stereotype he was referring to was "that Indian-Americans are all thinking about outsourcing, that whenever you talk to an Indian-American it’s about outsourcing."

"Indian-Americans are physicians here, they’re professionals here, they’re creating jobs in this country," he said.

Based on personal experience, I can attest that Indian Americans are indeed doctors and professionals. According to the Embassy of India, there are just over 2 million Indian Americans in the US, with a median income over $60,000. While not as numerous as some other ethnic groups in the US, they are growing in importance and represent a key constituency in some areas.

The GOP hopes for the continued success of Bobby Jindal to help in this area, and if he wins the Louisiana gubernatorial race this year it would not be a surprise if he has a significant role in the 2008 convention. It'll also help if Democrats continue to mock his ancestry by pointedly referring to him as 'Piyush.'

Flagpole Sitta

This is cool. Hat Tip: Galley Slaves, where Jonathan Last describes it like this:

I can't quite figure out what's going on here. Is this a dot.com start-up? A graduate seminar? A very experimental theater group? Whatever the case, it makes me want to be young again.

Defense Authorization gets 'the Coburn Treatment'

Read it at the Standard.

Economist: Europe's Demographics Not as Bad as You Think

But still pretty bad. Check out the Standard.

Fighting IEDs

A look at the challenge from Government Executive:

Believing that it takes a nimble network to fight one, the U.S. military services have created a number of ad hoc groups like Meigs' to operate outside the lumbering Pentagon bureaucracy. His outfit exists to rush promising technologies to the battlefield without having to go through the Byzantine weapons acquisition process. "Microsoft pumps out software enhancements about every nine months. You get a new generation of cell phone [every] year to 18 months. That's the rhythm we're on, and it's a completely different way of doing business in Defense," Meigs says. Despite the $70 billion the Pentagon spends annually on research and development, he says, a technological silver bullet for IEDs is unlikely...

rmy Capt. Aaron Duncan, who spent 2005 and early 2006 in southern Baghdad as an intelligence officer, says the fragmented nature of the insurgency makes it nearly impossible to penetrate. A bomber cell might operate for a few weeks and then disband. Its members then join other cells or start their own or find jobs and leave the insurgency. On a piece of paper, Duncan draws a triangular diagram of the cell structure. At the top is the money man, the planner, typically a former Iraqi military or intelligence officer under the Saddam Hussein regime. "You are not going to persuade this guy to stop; you either have to kill him or capture him," Duncan says.

If U.S. forces take out the base of the triangle, the workers, then the cell leader must recruit new ones, which takes time. That can deactivate a cell for a week or two. If soldiers capture a mid-level leader, that link of the chain is broken and the cell might become inactive. The leaderless members might start their own cell or get rolled into another, says Duncan. But "If you cut the head off the beast, you've still got these guys down here, and you have another splinter cell develop. By just cutting off the head, you don't fix the problem because other heads will emerge. If you cut off the tails, other tails will grow. So how do you fix it? You have to target the whole group together, and put something in its place to deny them the ability to conduct operations."

U.S. military officers say the answer is better intelligence and money. Funding for reconstructing the country will provide potential insurgents with a source of income other than fighting, they say. Whether America can produce either remains questionable.

It's an interesting and depressing piece. Taken together, it seems merely to emphasize the importance of a political solution to the challenge in Iraq.

Is the End Near for McCain

Bob Novak seems to think so, and it's hard to find reason for optimism. In particular, I suspect that the prevalence of the immigration debate right now is reminding primary voters that was one of the lead Republican backers of what they see as an amnesty. The President's prominent insults to conservative opponents of the deal earns him resentment, which probably transfers to McCain as well.

I'm not sure where he goes from here:

GOP Field: While Sen. John McCain claims that everything is "fine" in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, events strongly suggest otherwise. The former frontrunner is now in deep trouble. With respect to the positive signs a presidential campaign can point to at this early stage -- fundraising, national polls, state polls, endorsements -- McCain finds himself almost empty-handed.

For this and other reasons, the nascent campaign of former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson poses a challenge for McCain in particular. Thompson has reportedly raised millions in just days after filing an exploratory committee, and a new national Bloomberg poll puts him at 21 percent, in a strong second place against former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. McCain has plunged to 12 percent, just ahead of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, but at least Romney has some bright points in his favor: his lead in fundraising and his lead in Iowa and New Hampshire polls.

McCain has no such good news. If Thompson is the charging bear, McCain is the slowest of the three campers fleeing him -- the most likely to be devoured.

Read the whole article for Novak's dissection of McCain's multiple problems.

Will Green Aviation Kneecap Boeing

The green movement and the related effort to reduce carbon emissions continues to transform our world. It's prompting Airbus to consider a zero-emissions passenger aircraft in our lifetimes. And with that as a backdrop, Airbus wants to work with Boeing on transforming the aviation sector:

Boeing and Airbus should overcome their deep-rooted rivalry to develop together clean technology for the aviation industry, according to Louis Gallois, the European aircraft maker’s chief executive.

Mr Gallois, echoing the industry’s concern as governments seek to crack down on aviation’s environmental impact, invited his US rival and other engine and aircraft makers to pool research on technology to cut carbon emissions...

On Thursday EasyJet, the UK low-cost carrier and one of Airbus’s most important customers, set out its environmental requirements for the next generation of short-haul “super-clean” aircraft. It said the technology existed for the aircraft to be operational by 2015.

It unveiled a design for what it dubbed the “EcoJet”, which would need to be 25 per cent quieter and emit 50 per cent less carbon dioxide and 75 per cent less oxides of nitrogen than the A320 and 737 families.

The EasyJet design includes two rear-mounted “open rotor” engines placed between twin tailfins, lightweight carbon fibre fuselage, and wings designed for lower speed and shorter range than the A320 and 737 families.

On the one hand, Boeing and Airbus serve the same customer base, so it's not as if Boeing can ignore the demand of customers for 'greener' planes. At the same time, Airbus probably faces higher operating costs because of its extensive operations in heavily-regulated Europe, as opposed to more business-friendly climates in the US and elsewhere. Further, investments in new technology for 'green' aviation will likely cost Airbus quite a lot; it makes sense to encourage Boeing to make similar expenditures.

One potential wildcard: what if Boeing and Airbus do cooperate, and Boeing stands to gain from Airbus's investments? Will that make Boeing more forgiving of the subsidies Airbus has received from its government parents?

Can 'Vote Pummeling' Get Movement on Earmark Reform?

Erick and the team at Red State are doing a great job of chronicling the ongoing fight in the House over earmark reform. Confirming that optimistic Republicans were premature when they thought they had convinced Democrats to stick with their promise to reform earmarking, Democrats are preventing Members from offering amendments to a regular appropriations bill.

House rules expert Don Wolfensberger recently explained in Roll Call ($) that while there may be no filibuster in the House, the minority can still engage in some 'vote pummeling:'

The minority party in the House of Representatives cannot use the Senate’s filibuster or “hold” to block or protest majority power plays. Instead, the minority has what I call the “procedural vote pummeling ploy,” in which it forces a series of recorded votes on various procedural motions.

The votes can tie up House floor business for hours on end since each recorded vote takes at least 15 minutes. The ploy focuses media and public attention on perceived abuses of power. More importantly, the minority’s threat to “shut down the House” can force the majority to reconsider its heavy-handed tactics.

That’s exactly what happened on May 16 when Republicans caught wind of a rumor that the majority was about to spring a House rules change either to curtail the minority’s right to recommit legislation with instructions (offer a final amendment to a bill) or to change the germaneness standard for such amendments. The rumor was enough to trigger a rolling pummel of 12 votes on adjournment, quorum calls and demands that the Committee of the Whole rise on the Defense authorization bill.

That's what the Republicans are trying to do right now.

It's making for a slow day on the House floor:

Congress Doesn't Understand Trade, Business

Bottom headline of the day. Dog bites man.

CongressNow reports on a hearing before the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, regarding the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement:

Sherman also directed his attention to Bhatia, asking whether there were any studies that showed the U.S.-Korea deal would reduce the trade deficit between the two countries.

When Bhatia said that it was impossible to assess the impact before a trade agreement goes into effect, Sherman responded, "I can't imagine coming into a business boardroom and saying, 'This is the deal. We don't know whether it's going to cost us money or make us money, but sign on the dotted line because it's a good process.'"

Congressman Sherman doesn't seem understand either trade or business, apparently. When a business signs a deal to exchange goods and services -- the appropriate parallel here -- the goal is to make sure that the terms are right, and that they fit into the firm's overall strategy for earning money.

To draw an analogy, when Avis purchases a fleet of cars, they want to make sure they're not paying more than they need to. When Sony supplies CDs to Target, they want to make sure that the markup is not so high that it reduces overall sales. That's how they determine if it's a good deal. Avis does not ask 'how much are we selling to Chrysler?' before making a deal. Target doesn't hold up a deal because Sony is getting its paper products at WalMart.

Companies don't consider the balance of trade when they sign deals. They decide whether the deal gives them the best prices on what they need to buy, and the best chance to earn profit on what they sell. That's the test for agreements such as the US-Korea deal.

Murtha Tries to Take Pork-Barrelling to a New Level

Read it at the Standard.

On Energy

I've noted recently that Congressional energy policy is aimless. It reflects a laundry list of short term policy responses, rather than a coherent strategy to address serious long-term problems. I pointed out that the Chamber of Commerce has launched a new effort to promote a long-term response.

Now the Hill reports that the Chamber of Commerce is not the only group pushing for forward-thinking energy policy:

The other group is the Business Roundtable, a collection of CEOs from large American companies. It released a policy report last week detailing a series of energy-efficiency efforts it supports and highlighting the need to increase domestic energy supplies.

Both the Chamber and the Roundtable have lobbied energy policy debates before. But representatives describe the new efforts as a stepped-up campaign driven by new factors. Those include the growing support for national greenhouse gas limits, which would affect a variety of businesses; rising costs for fuels like natural gas and other energy sources; and nervousness among businesses about the future availability of foreign oil.

It's clear that long-term energy supply is becoming a more and more serious problem. Consider the nations from which we import the vast majority of our oil (Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iraq) and only Canada seems a secure long-term supplier. It's clear that we must tackle these challenges in a bipartisan fashion.

Norm Dicks=Walter Sobchak?

This post is completely trivial and unimportant, but any time a Member of Congress is compared to a character from the Big Lebowski, it has to be noted:

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) certainly fared better on the football field at the University of Washington when he played pigskin for the college team than he did when he gave the school’s graduation speech last weekend — to rousing boos from clearly unimpressed students.

And the Washington Democrat no doubt got tackled a few times in his gridiron days.

Now, to add insult to, well, insult, some disgruntled very recent UW grads have started a group on Facebook (that’s the online community for college kids, you oldsters) to further dis their commencement speaker. The group, “Norm Dicks is a douche bag,” was started by a former student identified on the group’s page as “Jon Brooks” and includes 15 members. The group’s mini-manifesto blasts Dicks’ “piss poor commencement ‘speech’ (AKA autobiography/political speech)” and compares it to the rants of Walter Sobchak, the character that John Goodman played in the cult flick “The Big Lebowski.”

“Basically, Norm Dicks and his speech is to UW graduation as Walter and his speeches about Vietnam is to the Big Lebowski,” the Facebook page opines. Walter, fans of the movie might recall, was the boorish vet who relates everything that happens to his time in the trenches in Nam...

The Seattle Times covers the address as well, and Dicks definitely comes across pretty well. But this whole post is really just a pretext for posting this. Strong language warning:

Added to the Christmas Playlist

How did this never make it onto the list of traditional Christmas anthems?



Remember it when the holiday season rolls around.

Cooks: Dems' Iraq Plays Cost Now; Pay Off Later

Political analyst extraordinaire Charlie Cook says that while Democratic poll numbers are plummeting right now -- because they backed down to President Bush on the question of Iraq funding -- their stance will pay dividends in 2008.

Did congressional Democrats make a mistake by switching to a more cautious approach, passing a war funding bill with no strings rather than one with a timetable that would be vetoed -- a veto they could not override? Clearly, this move has antagonized many voters with strong anti-war feelings. But with no hope of overriding presidential vetoes anytime soon, Democrats would have run the risk of being portrayed as leaving U.S. troops in the field without adequate resources once the current spending bill expired.

Meanwhile, House and Senate Republicans appear to be nearing the end of their rope on Iraq. Democrats will continue applying pressure to Bush and his fellow Republicans until someone breaks. When that happens, the balance may tip in Democrats' favor on this issue.

In short, Democratic leaders have opted for short-term pain in exchange for long-term gain. Anti-war forces are upset that the Democratic Party is not storming the ramparts every week. However, in November 2008, anti-war voters are very unlikely to defect to the GOP, stay home, or participate in another narcissistic exercise like backing Ralph Nader. That didn't work so well for them in 2000.

I've argued before that Democrats are likely to do well in 2008 if the major issue that voters are considering is Iraq. If however, the US has significantly stepped down its presence in Iraq, voters are unlikely to attach much significance to the issue. (Consider how quickly Winston Churchill and George Bush 41 were dumped by the voters after WWII and the first Gulf War.)

Rather, the lasting effect of this debate is likely to be the same as was the effect of the fight over Vietnam: Democrats will have lost credibility on national security and military issues, and their presidential nominee will suffer significantly as a result. It's interesting that the persistent frontrunner on the Democratic side has prominently separated herself from the other contenders, with her continued efforts to seem like her party's 'hawk.' It is because she realizes that as the frontrunner, there is no reason to handicap herself in a general election.

Fred Thompson on the Tonight Show

Link: sevenload.com

Roundup

Patrick Ruffini looks at Jon Bruning's primary challenge to Chuck Hagel, and suggests that the NRSC tell Hagel that he's on his own in any re-election bid. (As you may recall, he hasn't yet stated whether he intends to seek re-election, run for President, or retire.) While it's rare for the party committee not to support the re-election bid of an incumbent, such a statement at this time might have the salutary effect of discouraging Senator Hagel from forcing a primary against the popular AG.

Jane Galt speculates on the question of whether the albedo effect is an effective way to combat global warming. Not sure where she saw this cited, but I know that a letter writer to her magazine suggested it a few months ago. (I can't find it online, however.)

Check out the farm subsidy database.

The other day I commented that the economy appears to be doing better than some are saying right now. Kudlow offers further proof.

The Iranian economy is going to pot.

Congratulations to Justin Verlander.

Scottie Pippen (yes, that Scottie Pippen) got $300K in farm subsidies; David Letterman got $8K.

Rome Reborn

The University of Virginia has created a digital reconstruction of ancient Rome at the height of its power -- circa 320 AD. Check it out at Rome Reborn:

Guided by laser scans of modern-day Rome and advice from archaeologists, experts have rebuilt almost the entire city within its original 13-mile-long wall using the same computer programs architects use to plan new constructions, he said.

It even includes the interiors of about 30 buildings _ among them the Senate, the Colosseum and the basilica built by the emperor Maxentius _ complete with frescoes and decorations.

That's a picture of the Flavian Amphitheater (or 'colosseum') to the right. If you're like me, you've noticed that it appears to have been inspired by a visit to Yankee Stadium.

Me vs. jebus

I don't think he'll mind; this is pulled out of the comment thread for the post below on demagoguery. The quick and dirty: I am defending myself and the GOP on our motives in criticizing Democrats for failing to make good on process promises:

i would have to agree with the previous sentiment. the repubs had 12 years if they wished to deal with this issue.
# posted by jebus4me : 7:24 AM

Scroll back on this site and you will find more than a few posts claiming various unethical dem actions, dems thwarting process, and various other low-politic claims that are, and always will be, a minority complaint. I call it low-politic because both sides do it to push an agenda or stay in power. Any hypocrisy argument is silly because the complaint is as hypocritical as the action. No it is not right, and if you can show me a political party who upon becoming the majority limit their own power in this way, I will vote for them in a minute, because it clearly would be best for America. Until then, I have to support a candidate and a party who make me feel slightly less ill compared to the alternative.
# posted by jebus4me : 4:01 PM

Jebus - Don't think your posts make a lot of sense. You say that the GOP had 12 years to fix a problem and did not -- so they can't complain.

Democrats had years to fix entitlements and didn't. They had a chance to nab Osama bin Laden and didn't. George Bush has been President for 7 years and education still isn't fixed. Does any of those facts invalidate criticism from anybody? Of course not.

With regard to earmarks and open debate, the Democrats have failed to carry through on their promises to enact reforms, and in some cases have been worse than the Republicans.

So your conclusion is that Republicans need to quit crying about it? That's simply silly.

The job of the party out of power is to criticize the defects of the majority and propose alternatives. Whether Republicans are better or worse than the Democrats who replaced them, it does the public a disservice to say that they ought not criticize. When the Democrats criticize Bush over his handling of Al Qaeda, do you say 'now, now, you had your shot.' Of course not.

And did you last year regard all the promises of Democrats to change how Washington does business as irrelevant and vacuous? If you did not, then you can't now say that criticisms of their failure to fulfill said promises are invalid. That is, either the promises and the criticisms were both worth taking seriously, or they were not.

If instead, you feel that all that matters is the substance of the policies pursued - rather than the process considerations - so be it. I submit that you can't be all that happy on that score either, since by any measure the Democratic majority has failed to produce.
# posted by The Editor at IP : 4:45 PM

I'd also note that if you disregard process considerations -- the promise to change how things are done in Washington -- then you are...

OUT OF STEP WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

According to the LATimes, a majority of Americans are disappointed with Democrats' doing business the same old way:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pelosi12jun12,0,7184922.story
# posted by The Editor at IP : 4:50 PM

You are right, the job of the weak party is to complain about the job of the more powerful one. This is because it, and blocking legislation, is really all you can do when you are not in power. What both sides know, and what I think repubs have been better at for the last decade, is that it is more important to have power than do what is right all the time. If you are not in control, you get nothing you want done, if you are, then maybe 30-40%.

My conclusion is not to stop complaining, I would have a better shot to ask that the world stop rotating. But rather, you only really need to listen to those who criticize consistently, for example, those who call a spade a spade regardless of who controls government. If you only complain about something when you are not in a position to exploit it, well, as the first posted said, "sour grapes".
# posted by jebus4me : 8:57 PM

And if the motivation of the critic is just 'sour grapes,' then the criticism is less legitimate?

It's worth remembering that the last time the GOP was out of power in Congress and took control, they adhered to the promises they made while they were in the wilderness. They shut the House bank, cut back significantly on Member and staff perks, as well as passed the policy initiatives they promised.

So in that instance at least, the party coming into power DID curb their own power and perks, as they had promised to do. And the system that you disdain -- with partisans promising change for 'disingenuous' or 'self-serving' reasons, DID produce the change that the public supported.

How are the Democrats doing in similar circumstance? So far they've already gone back on a number of such promises.

Why have they done so? Probably because as a party, they are more loving of the state, and the authority of the state. It is why (for example) significantly more Democrats chose to serve 12 years in the Minority, waiting for a return to power, than Republicans chose to stay in the majority, exercising power.

It is those 85 House Democrats -- who waited 12 years to have their chairmanships returned to them -- that are still running the show, and preventing the Democrats from delivering on their promises.
# posted by The Editor at IP : 9:52 PM

Roundup

The guys at RedState commemorate the 20th anniversary of President Reagan's 'Tear Down This Wall' speech.



Galley Slaves has a number of thoughts on the end of the Sopranos. Scroll down.

My take? Stories have endings. I don't gain anything by not having David Chase select one. People will still debate for themselves whether it was the 'right' one. It would have improved the series to see Tony killed, or tried, or reformed -- to find out how Chase views the results of the choices these characters have made. As things stand now, we're left the rumors that Chase filmed three endings, and that they might include a Soprano family member dieing in a car bomb, or Tony being killed, or another family member taking a bullet intended for Tony. Presumably any such alternate endings will be included on a DVD, and people will debate for themselves which is the 'real' one. This will all be seen as an attempt to sell more DVDs. And what if Chase ultimately makes a movie, or adds additional episodes? This will all be seen as contrived.

If you're interested in more on the Sopranos, Chase does an interview here with NJ.com.

Need Your Sopranos Fix?

Perhaps you'd be interested in this Paulie spinoff? Looks better than 'Joey.'

Let's Root for Demagoguery

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey says that although Members of Congress will have little opportunity to review earmarks, and no opportunity to fight them, they ought not 'demagogue' the issue. And if they do? Well, he might just decide that no one gets any candy:

House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wis., today outlined how earmarks will be disclosed before conference, and warned that if Republicans “demagogue” the issue there might be no earmarks in the fiscal 2008 bills.

And why are Democrats unable to carry through on their promise to open up the process? They've been too busy 'trying to end' the Iraq war:

“There have been 30,000 requests for projects,” a spokeswoman for Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said, adding that with the debate over the Iraq war and new ethics requirements, staff simply has been backed up.

In the first 6 months of this year, Congressional Democrats engaged in an extended effort to browbeat the President into withdrawing from Iraq; they claimed it was an effort to end the war. Never mind that an actual effort to end the war would have involved de-funding it; the Democrats were unwilling to take the political risk of doing that. No, they engaged in a seemingly endless amount of political theater, which apparently consumed a tremendous amount of staff time and resources, all of which ended with Democrats giving the President the clean bill he asked for -- after more than three months of demagoguery.

Republican critics of this retreat from campaign promises note (implicitly) that under their watch, these bills were porked up from the start of the process. Since the Democrats are waiting until the last minute to add thousands of pork-barrel projects, these bills now contain 'slush funds,' whose content will be spelled out later:

Republicans have accused Democrats of making the earmark process secret, calling the money reserved for earmarks in appropriations bills a “slush fund” and plan to use aggressive floor tactics this week to highlight what they perceive as a fundamental rule change...

“This bill provides $4.3 billion for unspecified projects,” Lewis said. “What that really means is that the bill before us recommends a $4.3 billion pot of money with zero direction from Congress on how the Corps [of Engineers] should allocate this money.”

If the GOP had been this vigilant about earmarks last year, they might not be on the outside looking in. It's nice at least, to see them starting to demonstrate the zeal of the convert.

Russian Roulette

I cast a backward glance at the G-8 summit to review Putin's dramatic volte-face on the issue of missile defence. In view of Aeroflot's order of 22 Boeing 787's today, it seems unlikely that the Russian heavy-breathing about missile defence was anything but a face-saving means of entering into participation in the U.S. programme.

The more interesting question is the degree to which the U.S., other G-8 powers and the international media had some sense that this was merely kabuki theatre. Bush's nonchalance prior to the summit makes much more sense under this interpretation.

Redshirted Kindergartners

Interesting piece from last week's NYT magazine, on the push by parents and educators to make sure that their children are older than their classmates at any given grade level. Why? Because the older kids do dramatically better than the younger ones in early levels -- particularly kindergarten -- and continue to do measurably better even in much higher levels:

...And in contemporary America, children are deemed eligible to enter kindergarten according to an arbitrary date on the calendar known as the birthday cutoff — that is, when the state, or in some instances the school district, determines they are old enough. The birthday cutoffs span six months, from Indiana, where a child must turn 5 by July 1 of the year he enters kindergarten, to Connecticut, where he must turn 5 by Jan. 1 of his kindergarten year. Children can start school a year late, but in general they cannot start a year early...

Redshirting is not a new phenomenon — in fact, the percentage of redshirted children has held relatively steady since education scholars started tracking the practice in the 1980s. Studies by the National Center for Education Statistics in the 1990s show that delayed-entry children made up somewhere between 6 and 9 percent of all kindergartners; a new study is due out in six months. As states roll back birthday cutoffs, there are more older kindergartners in general — and more redshirted kindergartners who are even older than the oldest kindergartners in previous years. Recently, redshirting has become a particular concern, because in certain affluent communities the numbers of kindergartners coming to school a year later are three or four times the national average. “Do you know what the number is in my district?” Representative Folwell, from a middle-class part of Winston-Salem, N.C., asked me. “Twenty-six percent.” In one kindergarten I visited in Los Altos, Calif. — average home price, $1 million — about one-quarter of the kids had been electively held back as well. Fred Morrison, a developmental psychologist at the University of Michigan who has studied the impact of falling on one side or the other of the birthday cutoff, sees the endless “graying of kindergarten,” as it’s sometimes called, as coming from a parental obsession not with their children’s academic accomplishment but with their social maturity. “You couldn’t find a kid who skips a grade these days,” Morrison told me. “We used to revere individual accomplishment. Now we revere self-esteem, and the reverence has snowballed in unconscious ways — into parents always wanting their children to feel good, wanting everything to be pleasant...”

Long excerpt, but it's a very interesting piece. Take a read, particularly if you have kids.

Update: 'Jebus' offers the following comment below:

One of the more interesting parts of the article, besides the term 'redshirting', is the economic component. As it turns out, in urban areas, it costs more for a year of preschool than a year of public college (you just try and find a preschool in the NYC area for under 15G, seriously, if you do let me know.) Therefore, pushing the public school cutoff dates back places a huge financial burden on families. All in the name of higher test scores.

Thompson's Missteps; McCain's Final Days?

I think McCain's campaign will be in serious trouble if they can't meet the fundraising goal they set after 're-launching' the campaign some weeks ago. Combined with the stink of the immigration mess, it sounds like he's in real trouble:

George W. Bush's 2004 campaign fund-raisers and contributors are being bombarded with appeals for money by Sen. John McCain's heavy-spending, money-short 2008 campaign.

McCain is concentrating heavily on the rich target of lawyers and lobbyists in Washington, D.C. They have been invited to multiple McCain fund-raising events held in the nation's capital, currently a $1,000-a-ticket reception June 26 at the Capitol Hill Club with a potential "event co-chair" asked to raise $50,000. A large percentage of the Bush fund-raising team remains uncommitted, a signal that the Republican establishment is not satisfied with the present field seeking the party's nomination.

McCain's money-raisers are hard put to reach the $10 million goal set for the second quarter of 2008 by the June 30 deadline, after collecting $12 million in the first quarter. McCain raised $2 million in April and $3 million in May, and is expected to reach $2-3 million in June -- falling short of the $10 million goal and of what his opponents have raised.

Read the rest of Novak's piece for info on the nascent Thompson campaign.

Liquid Water Discovered on Mars

How cool would this be?

A new analysis of pictures taken by the exploration rover Opportunity reveals what appear to be small ponds of liquid water on the surface of Mars.

The report identifies specific spots that appear to have contained liquid water two years ago, when Opportunity was exploring a crater called Endurance. It is a highly controversial claim, as many scientists believe that liquid water cannot exist on the surface of Mars today because of the planet’s thin atmosphere.

Looks rather a lot like water to me.

Economy on the Rebound?

It's strange that on a day when the White House is officially lowering its estimate for economic growth this year, new trade figures show growth to be more robust than previously thought. First the slowdown:

The White House on Wednesday lowered its forecast for economic growth this year even as it slightly upgraded its outlook for unemployment.

Under the administration's new forecast, gross domestic product, or GDP, will grow by 2.3 percent as measured from the fourth quarter of last year to the fourth quarter of this year. That's down from a previous projection of 2.9 percent.

The main reason for the downgrade: The first three months of 2007 got off to an extremely weak start. Economic growth at that time had skidded to nearly a halt, increasing at a rate of just 0.6 percent, the worst showing in more than four years.

The news of the rebound is from the Financial Times, and it's directly linked to strong export growth :

Global demand for US exports helped shrink the country’s trade gap in April in a strong sign that the American economy is picking up speed.

The trade deficit fell by more than even the most optimistic Wall Street economists were expecting and prompted many to upgrade their forecasts for economic growth in the second quarter...

Bruce C. Kasman, chief economist at JPMorgan, said he was raising his forecast for growth in the second quarter to 4 per cent from 2.5 per cent after an expansion of only 0.6 per cent last quarter.

The Economist -- in an article dated yesterday -- speaks about 2.5 percent growth in the second quarter, and notes that exports may be expected to rebound quickly (as they apparently have done), even as the housing market remains disappointing.

It sounds as if the remainder of 2007 may see relatively strong growth. Of course, with the unemployment rate currently around 4.5 percent, there's not much room for it to get better.

Ham Nation: Sopranos Tribute

Very funny. It took me a little while to realize I wasn't actually watching the opening:

Politico Interview with David Zucker

This is a little old, apparently, but I'm just coming to it now.

The Politico has an interesting interview with David Zucker -- one of the creative minds behind 'Airplane,' 'Top Secret,' 'Kentucky Fried Movie,' and other funny films. In the last few election cycles, Zucker has created several memorable commercials that poke fun at Democrats. Most memorable is this one featuring Madeline Albright:



Another good one is the 'Taxman' ad:



And here is one he apparently made on the ISG recommendations:



The Zucker interview is interesting for several items -- notably his kind words for High Hewitt, his description of himself as a JFK Democrat, and his observation that 'Republicans think Democrats are just wrong; but Democrats think Republicans are bad'

Politico doesn't seem to allow embedding, so here's the link.

Roundup

How do businesses make money in New York - and how much do they make? New York magazine explains profits and costs for a range of different types of business.

(Hat Tip: Mary)

Giuliani plans to debut a plan to significantly reform health insurance in the US. Good for him. I'm unsure whether he'll be able to sell a system where many people see fewer things covered than they do today, but providing a tax incentive to purchase insurance on the private market seems a valuable idea. Ending the preference for employer-provided health insurance and allowing consumers more choice can only be to the good.

Michael Barone has nice things to say about his reception on the Daily Show, and regarding Jon Stewart personally. Here's the interview.



Danny Glover of Beltway Blogroll writes on the Gartner Group's finding that government agencies will shy away from alternate worlds like 'Second Life.'

Spoiling the Sopranos

Don't worry; I'm not about to do it. (In fact, I can't do it).

But Gawker is suggesting that someone has ruined the surprise ending of the series with a sloppy E-mail subject line:

Dear Leslie Taylor of Big Machine Media,

We're so happy for your client that he has managed to snag an appearance on the finale of the Sopranos. And how helpful to know that he is "A SAG, AFTRA and AEA member!" But what the HOLY HECK were you thinking sending out a mass email describing the role he'll play in the SUBJECT LINE OF THE EMAIL? Are you the worst person alive? Do you eat puppies? We'd wish a horrible fate on you, but you already rep Janice Dickinson so that seems to be covered.

GRR!,

The Universe

If I get the E-mail from Ms. Taylor, I'll let you know.

Obey: You Can Review Earmarks, But Can't Do Anything About Them

Over at the Standard.

Hillary vs. Obama

Hang around until the end; it's kind of funny.

Mild content warning:



Hat Tip: Red State

House Votes for the 'H' Prize

Congressional Quarterly reports that the House did something sensible yesterday, passing legislation to create the hydrogen energy version of the 'X Prize:'

The government would offer a series of cash prizes for innovations in hydrogen energy under a bill the House passed Wednesday.

The bill (HR 632), by Daniel Lipinski, D-Ill., would be intended to bring clean-burning hydrogen-powered vehicles closer to reality. It passed by a 408-8 vote. “The future possibilities of this energy source are enormous,” Lipinski said...

Every two years, H-Prizes worth $1 million would be given in four categories: production, storage, distribution and utilization. One $4 million prize would be awarded for hydrogen vehicles. At the end of 10 years, a $10 million grand prize would be given for a “transformational advance in hydrogen energy technology.”

FuturePundit offered thoughts on the value of prizes a little while ago.

Aimlessness on Energy

I commented over at the Standard yesterday that Democrats seem not to know where they want to go on energy legislation. Their overall goals appear to include lower production of petroleum and gasoline (seen in opposition to drilling in ANWR and opposition to coal liquification), increased use of more expensive and less efficient alternate fuels, and lower prices.

See anything amiss there?

The Hill looks today at both the House and Senate energy bills, and notes fights over coal liquification and CAFE standards.

And don't underestimate the importance of the fight over renewable fuel goals. As Foreign Affairs has noted, a lot of corn is going into ethanol production, dramatically raising prices for corn-based foods. One commodity affected? Chicken feed:

Meanwhile, efforts by interest groups could further open regional divides. Livestock producers are pushing for an amendment that would waive implementation of the renewable fuels standard if corn prices grew too high. They say that increased demand for ethanol — a high priority for agriculture-state lawmakers — is driving up the prices for livestock feed to record levels.

The price of chicken feed, for instance, has increased 60 percent over the last several months.

“We’re hoping for some relief,” said Richard Lobb, spokesman for the National Chicken Council, a trade group.

According to Dr. Bruce Babcock of Iowa State University, the average American grocery bill will rise by $50 in the next two years alone, simply because of the increased use of corn for ethanol:

Hart says that'll mean a hike of about 5% in the price of milk, beef, pork and chicken. "The producer will see it, but not enough to change consumption patterns," Hart said.

And, Ag Secretary Mike Johanns says livestock producers-- and their consumers-- may not get a break for two years. But, ethanol producers call this a "short term situation." "We don't like high corn prices either," said Don Endres, VeraSun CEO. "But, we're convinced that the "long-term" is very good."

Ethanol and other alternative fuels have ramifications and costs that are not generally discussed. We ought to discuss them.

Roundup

The very talented Jon Henke has joined the campaign of Fred Thompson, and will be returning to the QandO blog. Given the failure of the Republican candidates to take internet organizing seriously, I suspect that Jon and the Thompson campaign will seize the initiative. The question is whether the other candidates can follow.

The T-Rex did not move fast.

The Edwards campaign is not ready for prime time. (Hat Tip: Insty).

Barone has thoughts on the Republican numbers. They show Giuliani with a slight lead over Thompson, Romney and McCain. He does not assert -- but I will -- that Thompson's numbers are likely to improve once he actually, really announces.

See Fred on Hannity:



Novak writes about the significant problems with the Edwards campaign - even if he wins the nomination.

David All explains how the Thompson online team is far better than any of his GOP opponents.

The Fleeting Nature of the Forever Door

This is just a personal observation. The Forever Door is actually as fleeting as many other things in life. You may think you've got a door that'll be working superbly long after you're gone, only to find that it lasts only a few years.

Or put another way, it might last forever -- but if it doesn't, you're the one who has to pay for it.

Roundup

Is Al Gore running? Who cares. He would not be an especially strong candidate in the general election, anyway.

Fred Barnes says there's a lot to like in the immigration bill.

Why did Berger give up his license so easily?

John Podhoretz is not a fan of 'Knocked Up.'

Bill O'Reilly opposes the immigration bill, because it seeks to upset the white, male, Christian power structure of the country. There are those who believe this would be a great reason to support it.

Bill Jefferson will be indicted.

Fred Thompson's campaign will depend heavily on internet organizing and fundraising. This is a welcome development, and one that's likely to push Giuliani, McCain, Romney and others to try to catch up.

Check out the latest culinary triumph from Brooklyn: deep fried pizza. Is there anything that can't be deep-fried?

AP Discovers Democratic Hypocrisy

They're not following the rules they instituted at the start of the Congress. Who knew?

The Pendulum Swings Back

I heard this advertised on the radio yesterday: