Government Surveillance Gone Wild

Check out the Blue Crab.

Back to the top.

Mexico Presidential Race: A Photo Finish

Last week I talked about the polls showing a surge by Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in Mexico's Presidential race. Today two polls report the race either tied, or with Calderon back ahead. The poll in which Calderon leads shows support for Roberto Madrazo cratering, in keeping with the Michael Barone theory about the race.

Let's hope for a minimum of scandal in vote counting. Do you suppose we can count on Jimmy Carter to keep things honest? I mean, he's the one that keeps things honest everywhere!

Back to the top.

9/11 Cornerstone Quietly Removed

A sad story, but I guess it's actually a sign of progress. Since Freedom Tower is under construction at the former World Trade Center site, the cornerstone laid on July 4, 2004 has had to be removed for a while. It's depressing that work on the site is not projected for completion until 2012:

With Tower Yet to Rise, Cornerstone Leaves Town
By DAVID W. DUNLAP

The 20-ton cornerstone of the Freedom Tower was carted off from the World Trade Center site early yesterday, nearly two years after it was ceremoniously set in place on July 4, with its silvered, chiseled letters proclaiming it a "tribute to the enduring spirit of freedom."

No one made a speech yesterday morning. No one sang "God Bless America." No one read from the Declaration of Independence.

Instead, the cornerstone was placed on a truck and returned to Innovative Stone in Hauppauge, N.Y., where it will remain for as long as two years until it returns to ground zero.

About 6:30 a.m., the five-and-a-half-foot-high block of Adirondack granite was hoisted by crane from its place near the temporary PATH terminal, said Mel Ruffini, a senior vice president of the Tishman Construction Corporation, which is building the Freedom Tower for Silverstein Properties on behalf of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Then it was lowered onto a flatbed truck and covered in a tarp. By 7:15, it was rolling up the long ramp out of the ground zero pit, headed for Innovative Stone on Long Island, where it had been cut, honed, polished and inscribed in 2004. It arrived safely three hours later, said Karen Pearse, the chief executive at Innovative.

The cornerstone will be kept there in a plexiglass case, viewable by appointment.

"It needs to be repositioned to make sense in the new building," said David Worsley, a senior vice president and the director of construction at Silverstein Properties.

When the Freedom Tower was redesigned last year because of security concerns, the cornerstone's location was rendered obsolete. The architects shifted the building's edge about 40 feet to the west, leaving the cornerstone standing outside the bounds of the reconfigured tower...

Back to the top.

Does Technology Divide or Unite?

Fascinating question this morning (to me, if no one else): does high technology promote or undercut close personal ties? First the article, from Reuters:

Americans' circle of close friends shrinking
By Amanda Beck
Fri Jun 23, 3:04 PM ET

Americans are more socially isolated than they were 20 years ago, separated by work, commuting and the single life, researchers reported on Friday.

Nearly a quarter of people surveyed said they had "zero" close friends with whom to discuss personal matters. More than 50 percent named two or fewer confidants, most often immediate family members, the researchers said.

"This is a big social change, and it indicates something that's not good for our society," said Duke University Professor Lynn Smith-Lovin, lead author on the study to be published in the American Sociological Review.

Smith-Lovin's group used data from a national survey of 1,500 American adults that has been ongoing since 1972.

She said it indicated people had a surprising drop in the number of close friends since 1985. At that time, Americans most commonly said they had three close friends whom they had known for a long time, saw often, and with whom they shared a number of interests.

They were almost as likely to name four or five friends, and the relationships often sprang from their neighborhoods or communities.

Ties to a close network of friends create a social safety net that is good for society, and for the individual. Research has linked social support and civic participation to a longer life, Smith-Lovin said.

People were not asked why they had fewer intimate ties, but Smith-Lovin said that part of the cause could be that Americans are working more, marrying later, having fewer children, and commuting longer distances.

The data also show the social isolation trend mirrors other class divides: Non-whites and people with less education tend to have smaller social networks than white Americans and the highly educated.

That means that in daily life, personal emergencies and national disasters like Hurricane Katrina, those with the fewest resources also have the fewest personal friends to call for advice and assistance.

"It's one thing to know someone and exchange e-mails with them. It's another thing to say, 'Will you give me a ride out of town with all of my possessions and pets? And can I stay with you for a couple or three months?" Smith-Lovin said.

"Worrying about social isolation is not a matter of nostalgia for a warm and cuddly past. Real things are strongly connected with that," added Harvard University Public Policy Professor Robert Putnam, author of "Bowling Alone," a book on the decline of American community.

He suggested flexible work schedules would allow Americans to tend both personal and professional lives.

I've always been under the impression that the new technologies and the increased affluence associated with the post-World War II era tended to make people more isolated. Where people used to sit out on their porches or stoops after supper, they purchased TVs and VCRs and video games and stayed inside. Social Security and better retirement planning allowed people to live only with the nuclear family, rather than with older parents, aunts and uncles.

But that covers the period from, let's say 1950-1990. After that the universality of personal computers, the Internet, webcams and phones, and cell phones gave people much better ways to associate over distance. Communities like MySpace and others have promoted the development of web associations. DailyKos seems to be the textbook example of how modern technology promotes association, and the success of web-based candidacies shows that there is real unity through web-based communications. And while I have not finished 'Army of Davids,' I know that Glenn has talked about the development of the '3rd place' - a new kind of 'hangout' where people can linger in familiar settings, with familiar people.

So it's perhaps a little surprising to me that people are still more isolated than 20 years ago. Technology does make us less dependent on others, so it could be reinforcing existing patterns. Or is it that - as the article notes - better-educated, higher-earning, white people (who are probably disproportionately technology-enabled) tend to have better networks. So perhaps technology is a force to unite. What's behind this, and what will it be like 20 years from now?

Back to the top.

Murtha: I'm Mad as Hell...

First the substance: John Murtha has disgraced himself by saying that the United States is the top threat to world peace.

Murtha says U.S. poses top threat to world peace
SOUTH FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL

MIAMI — American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to an audience of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.

Murtha was the guest speaker at a town hall meeting organized by Rep. Kendrick B. Meek, D-Miami, at Florida International University's Biscayne Bay Campus. Meek's mother, former Rep. Carrie Meek, D-Miami, was also on the panel.

War veterans, local mayors, university students and faculty were in the Mary Ann Wolfe Theatre to listen to the three panelists discuss the war in Iraq for an hour.

A former Marine and a prominent critic of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, Murtha reiterated his views that the war cannot be won militarily and needs political solutions. He said the more than 100,000 troops in Iraq should be pulled out immediately, and deployed to peripheral countries like Kuwait.

"We do not want permanent bases in Iraq," Murtha told the audience. "We want as many Americans out of there as possible."

Murtha also has publicly said that the shooting of 24 Iraqis in November at Haditha, a city in the Anbar province of western Iraq that has been plagued by insurgents, was wrongfully covered up.

The killings, which sparked an investigation into the deadly encounter and another into whether they were the subject of a cover-up, could undermine U.S. efforts in Iraq more than the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib in 2004, Murtha said.

"(The United States) became the target when Abu Ghraib came along," Murtha said.

Where to begin? First off, let's note that the appropriate question with Murtha is no longer 'should he be re-elected to Congress?' Instead, it's 'is he getting the care he needs?' Because he has clearly lost it. Even on something as basic as knowing that US troops are not the primary target in Iraq - Iraqis are - Murtha demonstrates an utter failure to understand the facts on the ground. I guess we should take it as progress that he's no longer advocating a redeployment to Okinawa, but that's little comfort. The man is a buffoon, and his comments are an insult to our men and women in uniform.

As for the politics, this once again demonstrates the extraordinary ability of the Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot, arm, thigh, ear, hip, abdomen, and any other body part in easy view. Murtha is bringing back the worst images of the Democratic party from the Vietnam era. Seriously: when was the last time you heard someone in his or her right mind say that the US was the greatest threat to world peace?

Happily for Republicans, Murtha announced for 'Majority Leader' (chuckle), before launching himself into the lunatic fringe, guaranteeing widespread coverage of his comments. For wavering independent voters, this is simply one more demonstration that Democrats cannot be trusted in power.

I think it's a safe bet that the folks at the NRCC are polling to see how Murtha's Howard Beale act is going over. Murtha's district is rated +5 Democrat by analyst Charlie Cook - which makes it Democratic leaning, but by no means a safe seat. Folks who have for decades been happy to have a non-controversial conservative Democrat representing them are waking up to see their man in DC is a loon. I expect there are a lot of people open to other options.

Hat tip: Powerline.

Update: The Sun Sentinel has now retracted this claim. See also my apology to Mr. Murtha here.

Back to the top.

Why Were WMD Finds Not Revealed Earlier?

Strategy Page offers what appears to be logical and reasonable conjecture (as opposed to to sourced material):

...There have been some discoveries that have made the news, most notably an incident in May, 2004, when terrorists used a 155-millimeter shell loaded with sarin in an IED. The shell detonated, exposing two soldiers to sarin nerve gas (both of whom survived and recovered). It is this attack that provides one explanation as to why many of the finds have been classified.

If the United States were to have announced WMD finds right away, it could have told terrorists (including those from al-Qaeda) where to look to locate chemical weapons. This would have placed troops at risk – for a marginal gain in public relations...

It seems logical, but it also seems to simple - to me, anyway.

Back to the top.

Iraq Hypocrisy?

With violent crime on the rise in disfunctional New Orleans, Mayor Nagin has requested - and Governor Blanco has approved - the dispatch of 300 Louisiana guardsmen to that city, to support law enforcement. This is a dangerous assignment, with the Times Picayune reporting what amounts to a 6 percent increase in murders this year, with what appears to be a rising curve:

With the body of a gunshot victim that was found Wednesday in the neighborhood of Algiers, the New Orleans murder toll so far this year reached 54. The number is well below the 134 killed in the first six months of 2005.

But considering the city's reduced population since Katrina, this year's murder rate so far is 16 killings per 100,000 people, compared to 15.1 in the same period last year, the New Orleans Times Picayune figured.

Congressman Steve King claims that the civilian death rate in New Orleans was almost TWICE the death rate in Iraq, before this increase:

The American city with the highest civilian death rate was New Orleans before Katrina - with a staggering 53.1 deaths per 100,000 - almost twice the death rate in Iraq.

Louisiana Weekly's Jerome LeDoux notes that violent deaths in New Orleans and other large cities are more numerous than in Iraq:

So, are you safer on the streets of New Orleans or in Iraq? What about the streets of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Newark, Atlanta? The truth is, adding up a year's tolls of just four of our big cities, the tolls far exceed the grand total of the whole Iraqi war. For 2005, our total national toll was 15,533. And what is our reaction to that?

Safety and crime control authorities are crowing that crime, including murders, is down to its lowest level since 1966. So we can afford to take comfort in "only" 15,533 murders in 2005, or an average of one murder every 34 minutes?

If Iraq had casualty figures even remotely approaching that awful average, we would call for the hide of the President, of our military officers, and of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives with every local politico thrown in to boot. As it is, the 2,500 total of military deaths in Iraq for the entire war is a target for media fixation and grief.

The truly scary thing is that, statistically, we would frequently be safer in Baghdad than in some of our big U.S. cities. If that isn't frightening, nothing is. Yet, where are the loud screams of protest and outrage at such an absence of law enforcement? In proportion to Baghdad, which media are excoriating our apathy toward security in our major cities?

And apparently the Guard is already dealing with bomb scares:

National Guard Troops Receive Bomb Threat

POSTED: 4:57 pm CDT June 23, 2006
UPDATED: 8:34 pm CDT June 23, 2006

NEW ORLEANS -- A suspicious package created some tense moments in downtown New Orleans on Friday.

The New Orleans Police Department closed down Loyola Avenue after the suspicious package was discovered at the Holiday Inn hotel where National Guard troops had been staying.

The mayor, governor and City Council requested that the National Guard troops be brought in to help police patrol hurricane-devastated neighborhoods plagued by looting.

No evacuations were ordered and the all-clear was given about just before 5 p.m.

Even more worrisome, the decision to send in troops is clearly a political one - aimed at protecting the local economy, without a focus on goals and objectives, and a clear exit strategy:

As the American Library Association opened the Big Easy's biggest convention since Katrina on Thursday, tourism leaders worried that a resurgence of crime could jeopardize any comeback by the city's largest industry. Hotels received dozens of phone calls from fretful librarians asking whether it was safe to come.

In hotel lobbies, visitors receive a paper telling them to enjoy strolling through the French Quarter. But it warns, "Refrain from venturing into areas of the city that are sparsely populated, particularly after dark."

Can anyone be confident that our troops will not be exposed to some unwinnable quagmire?

Given the high level of violence that the Guard will be exposed to, one ought to expect a healthy public debate over the tools and the protection they carry. After all, when the Guard was dispatched to Iraq, major newspapers offered an unceasing critical review of whether the Guard was properly equipped, or whether they were being unnecessarily exposed to a situation which was too dangerous, and for which they were not properly prepared. One might reasonably expect that the major media outlets that showed such concern for our troops in Iraq are no less concerned for them when they are deployed here at home, right?

Well, you might think so. And please let me know if you find any indication of it, because I have yet to find any. It seems that the MSM thinks that they need to be concerned about our troops when they are exposed to dangerous situations in Iraq, but not in the United States.

Hat tip: dad.

Back to the top.

Immigration Bill Will be Enacted

The New York Times provides an interesting profile of the state of play on immigration. I think that it's probably a fairly accurate assessment of where we stand and how we got here:

June 25, 2006
Bush's Immigration Plan Stalled as House G.O.P. Grew More Anxious
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
This article is by Adam Nagourney, Carl Hulse and Jim Rutenberg.

WASHINGTON, June 24 — For the White House, the Congressional picnic last week seemed like the perfect setting to mend strained relations with Republican allies on Capitol Hill: President Bush and his advisers eating taquitos and Mexican confetti rice on the lawn of the White House with Republican Congressional leaders.

But moments before Mr. Bush was to welcome his guests, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert told the president that House Republicans were effectively sidelining — and in the view of some Congressional aides probably killing — what had become Mr. Bush's signature domestic initiative of the year: an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws.

That disappointing news for Mr. Bush signaled the apparent collapse of a carefully orchestrated White House strategy to push a compromise immigration bill through Congress this summer — and in the process invigorate Mr. Bush's second term with a badly needed domestic victory.

The decision by the House leadership to defy the president after he had put so much prestige on the line — including a rare prime-time Oval Office speech for a domestic initiative — amounted to a clear rebuke of the president on an issue that he has long held dear.

An account of the administration's push for the initiative, based on interviews with members of Congress and senior White House and Congressional officials, shows that Mr. Bush's immigration measure was derailed by an overly optimistic assessment by the White House of the prospects for building a bipartisan coalition in support of the bill. It was also hurt by a fundamental misreading of the depth of hostility to the measure among House Republicans.

It was undone as well, White House and Congressional leaders acknowledged, by a sharp division over whether to focus on the short term or on the party's long-term political prospects. Mr. Bush's aides saw the House bill, which would make it a felony to live in this country illegally and would close off any chance to win legal status, as a threat to their attempts to broaden the party's appeal to Hispanic voters.

...White House officials said they could point to several areas of progress in Congress — on extending tax cuts, pushing a line-item veto and overhauling the pension system. They said that they were under no illusions about the difficulties facing the immigration plan, but that it would never have gotten this far without the president, who will keep pushing for it. Aides say it is still possible to reach a compromise after the November elections, if not before. "We believe by being patient and sticking with it, in time people are going to be pretty happy with what the president proposes," said Tony Snow, the White House spokesman.

But several analysts were skeptical, noting that in just the past week a Republican candidate for governor in Arizona called for building prison camps for illegal immigrants. And the first campaign advertisement for Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who many believe is the most endangered Republican in the Senate, featured him talking about stringent border measures.

From the start of the year, after House Republicans passed a tough immigration measure that Mr. Bush's political advisers worried would undercut their effort to appeal to Hispanic voters, the White House tentatively pushed a more moderate, "comprehensive" bill that was gathering support in the Senate.

But Mr. Bush was criticized by both sides as not taking a public stand on specifics and permitting conservative members of the House to define the debate. Aides said the president was trying to stay above the discussion to remain flexible enough to broker a compromise.

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said that in one strategy session Mr. Bush told the senator he could not be identified as publicly supporting the Senate bill, which sought to tighten border control but also give illegal immigrants a chance to become citizens after paying fines. "Don't quote me, Arlen," Mr. Specter recalled the president saying, implying that Mr. Bush had spoken approvingly of the bill.

...But House Republicans said they never stopped pressing the case to the White House that the bill was a political disaster for endangered incumbents, and they were baffled at what they said was the failure of Mr. Bush's aides to appreciate their conviction.

One lawmaker said House Republicans who had attended two closed-door briefings on the issue by the White House deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, and others, kept waiting for the administration to reverse their concerns that passing the bill would hurt Republicans; in the lawmakers' view, the administration never made a convincing case.

White House aides said Republicans had overestimated the bill's political liabilities and underestimated the long-term damage it could do to the party if Republicans were identified among Hispanics as anti-immigrant. "This is a bad trajectory for the Republican Party right now," said a senior Republican official who was granted anonymity to discuss the unusual friction in the Republican ranks.

Positions hardened when lawmakers went home for recess at the end of May and were confronted by constituents agitated over the issue. They returned to Washington to the news that Mr. Bilbray had narrowly won the seat vacated by Randy Cunningham, a Republican now jailed after a corruption scandal.

When House Republicans met for a conference that Wednesday, conservative members seized on the Bilbray victory as vindication of their argument that embracing the Senate and White House position would be poison in the fall elections, according to one participant in the meeting who was granted anonymity because the meetings were private.

...Over the next few days, Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, the head of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, went to Mr. Boehner and Mr. Hastert and, using polling data and pointing to what he described as politically implausible sections of the bill, warned of the consequences of enactment of the Senate legislation.

"Reynolds made clear to the leaders that the House had already staked out its position, and from a political standpoint it would be irresponsible to accept a bill that was much different," said Carl Forti, his communications director. He said Mr. Reynolds had told House leaders that supporting the bill would be "suicide for some of our members."

The White House and its supporters pointed to a poll that found strong support among Republican voters for a bill that allowed illegal immigrants to "earn" legal status. And senior White House aides argued that fellow party members were over-interpreting the meaning of Mr. Bilbray's victory in a traditionally solid Republican area. "We're happy he won," Mr. Snow said Friday. "But he barely got 50 percent."

I think the White House has all along felt that an enforcement-only bill such as that of the House will damage long-term Republican prospects with hispanic voters. Amd they certainly underestimated the depth of opposition to an amnesty among House Republicans. Republican representatives from every part of the country have been deluged with questions at town-hall meetings and public appearances about immigration. With so many convinced that support for the Senate approach would kill the Republican majority - if not their own political careers - there's no way a bill like that could pass the House.

Also, the White House has a point when they say that polls show broad support for an amnesty - or 'earned legalization.' The political question is whether those voters are going to base their vote on that issue. If 65% say they support an amnesty, and they will vote against officials who oppose one, amnesty would pass in a heartbeat. But amnesty supporters are not all that intense in their feelings, while opponents will vote against amnesty supporters in a heartbeat.

So I think that the President's approach is dead - unless no bill is done before the election, and Democrats make great advances in November. If Congressional Republicans stand against an amnesty, and Republicans lose seats in November, then in a lame-duck session there may be a decision to cut a quick deal and pass a bill. If Democrats wind up taking one of the Houses, there will be no lame duck deal, as Democrats will insist on having their say on the issue once they are in power. This is something amnesty opponents should fear, obviously.

But as I've predicted before, I think something like the House bill will get done before the elections. I think House Republicans have invested too much, and their slate of hearings - along with Hastert's commitment to further legislative action soon - is a clear indication that they have not given up on passing an enforcement-only bill. A majority of Senate Republicans favors such a bill as well. The President will continue to speak in support of a 'comprehensive' bill - which is both true to his beliefs and will help with hispanic voters - but he will ultimately sign the bill that Congress sends him. The political model will be Clinton on welfare reform or the Defense of Marriage Act: 'I'm not happy with this bill, and I would have done it differently, but this is a step forward.' This will represent a victory for the 'triangulation' strategy on immigration that I spoke of months ago, and Mickey Kaus suggested before me. It will not be pretty and no one will be entirely satisfied, but it's probably the best that can be expected from such a difficult issue.

(Let me provide as well, an important clarifying point: when I say that 'something like the House bill will get done,' it might contain some version of a guestworker program - such as the Pence proposal, or a worker program triggered by achieving enforcement targets. The test will be whether House Republicans believe that voting for the bill would tag them as amnesty supporters. The President's push for half a loaf, and Congressional GOP concerns about hispanic voters and a possible Democratic majority, could lead to such an approach.)

Back to the top.

Saddam Working on Insanity Defense

Reuters reports that Saddam and his defense team believe that he will be saved from death - and perhaps restored to power in Iraq - when the US begs for his assistance to deal with the insurgency:

Saddam clings to hope US will enlist his aid: lawyer
Sun Jun 25, 3:57 AM ET

Saddam Hussein is certain his trial for crimes against humanity will result in the death penalty, but clings to the hope that Washington will use the sentence as leverage to enlist his aid to tamp down the insurgency in Iraq, the New York Times reported on Sunday.

Saddam's chief lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi, told the newspaper in an interview conducted last week in Amman, Jordan, Saddam "knows the sentence has been issued from Washington, and if there is an even greater punishment than the death sentence, he'll get it."

But Saddam clings to hope, believing the way out is to become the United States' "last resort; they'll knock on his door," the lawyer said. "The United States will use this sentence to pressure Saddam to save it from its mess."

Saddam even believes the United States might reinstall him as president of Iraq, al-Dulaimi told the Times.

Deteriorating relations with Iran figure into Saddam's reasoning, the lawyer added. "The Iranian influence is a threat to American interests. ... The only person standing in the face of Iran, which is the enemy of America, is Saddam Hussein."

If Saddam or his attorney think that there's any chance of this happening, then he ought to be acquitted on account of insanity.

The truth is that the US attitude here comes closer to that of Goldfinger.

Back to the top.

Wormwood, We've Been Discovered!

I've said nice things about Chris Cannon, who's been a forceful advocate of legal immigration, even as he's supported efforts to secure the border. I'm unaware of anything he's done to warrant his Republican constituents denying him renomination. There are some who seek to crucify him for not being enough against illegal immigration, even though he voted in support of the House border-enforcement-only immigration bill (HR 4437). I take pride that the Republican party has unifying principles, but does not demand the adherence to dogma that the Democrats do.

Anyway, it looks like his opponent has made a rookie mistake:

Jacob's bad luck: Is it . . . Satan?
Bedeviled: His business deals have been delayed, keeping him from fully funding his campaign
By Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune

As if beating a five-term congressman wasn't hard enough, John Jacob said he has another foe working against him: the devil.

"There's another force that wants to keep us from going to Washington, D.C.," Jacob said. "It's the devil is what it is. I don't want you to print that, but it feels like that's what it is."

Jacob said Thursday that since he decided to run for Congress against Rep. Chris Cannon, Satan has bollixed his business deals, preventing him from putting as much money into the race as he had hoped.

Numerous business deals he had lined up have been delayed, freezing money he was counting on to finance his race.

"You know, you plan, you organize, you put your budget together and when you have 10 things fall through, not just one, there's some other, something else that is happening," Jacob said.

Asked if he actually believed that "something else" was indeed Satan, Jacob said: "I don't know who else it would be if it wasn't him. Now when that gets out in the paper, I'm going to be one of the screw-loose people."

Jacob initially said the devil was working against him during a Wednesday immigration event, then reiterated his belief Thursday in a meeting with The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board.

"There's a lot of adversity. There's no question I've had experiences that I think there's an outside force," he said.

The Salt Lake Tribune quotes a political science professor who presumably knows the constituency better than I, (it's largely LDS, and I am... not). He says this is unlikely to have a big negative impact. I accept that judgment. But it is amusing.

And lest you think that Jacob feels victimized, he believes that the Devil is out to get Chris Cannon as well:

Jacob, who like Cannon is LDS, said he is not the only one who is being opposed by Beelzebub. He said both Cannon and Sen. Bob Bennett have lost millions of dollars since going to Congress, and he believes their adversity is rooted in the same dark origins.

Cannon's campaign would not address whether Lucifer is opposing either candidate.

"Chris would not attribute any adversities to any outside influence," Cannon's chief of staff, Joe Hunter, said regarding Cannon's diminished personal wealth since going to Congress. "I'm not sure that Chris would even call them adversities. It's a conscious decision on Chris' part to do what's important to him. There's been far more important events in Chris' life than his business."

Jacob explained that, when people try to do something good, there are frequently forces that align to stop them.

"We have a country that was created by our Heavenly Father and it was a country that had a Constitution and everyone who came to America had strong faith. If that can be destroyed that would be the adversity. . . . Whether you want to call that Satan or whoever you want to call it, I believe in the last eight months I've experienced that."

Well, I can't imagine that this will HELP Jacob's campaign, particularly coming so close before the election. And Cannon's folks handled this the right way, politically, by not making a big deal out of it.

The primary is next Tuesday, the 27th.

Hat tip Captain's Quarters.

Back to the top.

Democratic Sweep in Utah?

Bob Novak offers a little insight into Howard Dean's defense of his '50-state strategy.' He excerpts an E-mail that Dean has sent, bragging about the party's investment in Utah this year. Sadly, Novak does not disclose the figure. I think it's a demonstration of a clear conflict of interest for Novak, because if people knew how much Dean was spending on Utah, Novak would probably lose a DNC Chair who's always entertaining:

HOWARD'S 50 STATES

Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean, unbowed by criticism of his 50-state strategy, sent supporters a June 20 e-mail boasting of how much money he has spent in Utah to build the party in a state with no competitive race for either house of Congress this year.

Dean has come under fire for spending all but $4.25 million of the $84.5 million the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has raised for this election cycle. Intraparty critics complain Dean is paying off promises to DNC members from Republican-majority states made in his campaign for chairman.

While admitting that Republican Utah is "not a place many would expect the national party to be focusing its resources," Dean's e-mail declared: "This is about getting the word out: The 50-state strategy is right for our party, and the people who support it will stand up and be counted. Make your donation to support the 50-state strategy now."

I am willing to predict that any money spent in Utah will be a colossal waste of money. If you're a Democrat who backs Dean, ask yourself whether you'd prefer to see that money spent in Utah, or on a Senate race in Ohio or Missouri. And ask yourself where Ken Mehlman would rather see it spent.

Back to the top.

Bad Conservative Ideas

Bob Novak is always an interesting read, and he has excellent insights into what's going on in Republican and conservative circles. Today he writes about an effort by some conservatives, including Chuck Donovan of the Family Research Council, to convene a new constitutional convention for the purpose of approving an amendment to protect traditional marriage:

Constitutional convention?
By Robert Novak
Jun 24, 2006

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Supporters of a constitutional amendment to keep the courts from legalizing homosexual marriage, stunned by poor support in the recent Senate vote, are beginning a campaign for a constitutional convention.

The provision of the Constitution's Article V requiring such a convention if called by two-thirds of the state legislatures has never been used. Fear of throwing the Constitution open to general amendment has overridden support for specific issues. However, key advocates of barring gay marriages believe the constitutional convention strategy will keep the issue alive.

A recent memo circulated within the anti-gay marriage coalition lists Princeton Professor Robby George, Tony Perkins and Chuck Donovan of the Family Research Council, and conservative financial consultant Frank Cannon as favoring the strategy.

However well-intentioned, this is at best unwise, and at worst downright dangerous. Conservatives have discussed the potential for a constitutional convention in the past - for everything from abortion to a balanced budget amendment. The idea has always foundered before touching upon the question of practicality. The fear has been that once a constitutional convention is convened, it's unclear whether one can limit what amendments emerge from it. (Relevant constitutional text is here.)

The Heritage Foundation argued for a constitutional convention for the balanced budget amendment in 1988, and contended that this fear was unfounded:

Because no convention under Article V has ever been held, the prospect of a constitutional convention is prompting understandable but unfounded fears. Critics have argued that the convention method of amendment is an untried and dangerous process and that a convention could run away beyond its mandate and rewrite the entire Constitution perhaps even repealing the Bill of Rights. These worries, however, are based on a misperception of the nature of an Article V convention and of the safeguards built into the amendment process.

A wide variety of authorities, including a special study committee of the American Bar Association, point out that a convention legally can be limited to a particular subject. These limitations can be enforced by Congress or the courts. A convention also would be constrained by a range of political factors, including the election of its delegates.

This argument notwithstanding, I think conservatives ought to be concerned about the possible ramifications of starting this process. What other proposed amendments might some states try to make part of the convention, or might other activists pursue? There are lots of ideas that sound good and would give conservatives fits. Some on the Left are calling for a privacy amendment. It could protect an absolute right to an abortion, and sanction drug use, as well as undercut efforts in the War on Terror. And what if only a few states directed their delegates to the convention to pursue such an amendment?

No, I think that this is an idea that will not get very far.

Update: I note via Real Clear Politics that Brian Wilson has already written a post in support of this effort. While I agree with his goal, I think that the method is unlikey to succeed - for the reasons I lay out above.

Back to the top.

RFID Tracks Vegas Liquor Usage

I know there's a really great joke in here, but I'm just not thinking of it.

Back to the top.

Bush Gets a Scare

Isn't this the sort of thing that the Secret Service is supposed to prevent?

Back to the top.

NY Times Secretly Sifting CIA Data

Or not so secretly. Apart from that, Scrappleface has it right.

Back to the top.

Rove & Satan: Together Again

It seems that some wiseass newspaper staffer will have some explaining to do.

According to the Hotline, if you had gone to the St. Petersburg Times early enough today, you would have read that Karl Rove and Satan are again working together on the GOP's midterm election strategy. The error has been corrected (the link is now dead), but the Hotline saved the image for posterity.

Do you think anyone needs to tell Kos, MoveOn and the rest on the Left that this is a joke?

Back to the top.

MSM Blows Our National Security, Again

The New York Times (among others) reveals details of administration surveillance of financial transactions among suspected terrorists. Ed Morrissey has an excellent analysis, as always.

I'll pick one small part of the article:

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

When the New York Times and other revealed that the United States was rendering terrorist captives to a number of EU members, there was huge pressure within the European Community to publicize as much about the program as possible, and to stop it. I know nothing about 'the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions,' but I bet that institution - SWIFT - has already started calling European governments and EU officials to let them know that as of this morning, they are no longer cooperating in the US program.

Another hit to our national security, thanks to the New York Times.

Back to the top.

In Mexico, AMLO With a Narrow Lead, Late

Two polls show Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador with a lead of two points, and another shows him with a lead of three points, over PAN candidate Felipe Calderon.

Newsday provides a profile of AMLO that makes him look like a rock star, and emphasizes his promises of lavish government spending. The Washington Post compares and contrasts him with Bill Clinton.

Michael Barone has had pithy commentary on the race, and he recently noted that in the polls which show lower support for Roberto Madrazo - the third major candidate - Calderon fares better. He suggests that as we get closer to election day (July 2), voters may decide that Madrazo can't win and shift their support to Calderon.

Back to the top.

Something Light-Hearted

I couldn't find the whole cartoon in one file, but even broken into 4 shorts, it holds up extremely well. It's "Rabbit Hood" featuring Errol Flynn, Bugs Bunny, and a nice couple from Kansas City.

Back to the top.

Because We'd Gone too Long Without Mollohan News

While it has not attracted as much attention as the Bill Jefferson investigation, the investigation of Alan Mollohan's finances continues to perk along. Bloomberg news reports that Mollohan secured at least $179 million in earmars for 21 companies and nonprofits, which donated about half of the overall revenue of the charitable foundation created by Mollohan:

Mollohan Helped Steer U.S. Contracts to Family-Charity Donors
June 22 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Alan Mollohan helped funnel at least $179 million in U.S. government contracts over the last six years to companies that gave to the West Virginia Democrat's family-run charity, tax records and other documents show.

The money went to 21 companies and nonprofit groups that contributed $225,427 to the Robert H. Mollohan Family Charitable Foundation in 2004 -- almost half of the charity's revenue, according to the documents. The congressman, an Appropriations Committee member whose finances are under federal investigation, is the secretary of the foundation, which is named for his father.

The charity, which distributes scholarships to West Virginia students, raises most of its money from corporate sponsors of an annual golf tournament attended by Mollohan, 63. The event gives company executives an opportunity to meet with him in a casual setting without having to report the donations as lobbying expenses.

``They are buying time, they are buying access, they are buying goodwill for their particular corporate needs,'' said Rick Cohen, executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, a Washington-based group that advocates strict ethical standards for charities.

Ron Hudok, a spokesman for Mollohan, didn't respond to an e-mail or phone calls seeking comment on the congressman's ties to the foundation.

...IRS Disclosure

While nonprofit groups are required to disclose their donors to the Internal Revenue Service, they don't have to make the list public. The Mollohan Foundation's list was made public by the office of West Virginia's secretary of state.

One of the beneficiaries is D.N. American Inc., an information technology company with headquarters in the Alan B. Mollohan Innovation Center, a federally funded office building in Mollohan's home town of Fairmont. Mollohan announced in a press release in January 2004 that the company would get part of $3 million set aside for an electronics recycling project. D.N. American gave $20,000 to the Mollohan Foundation in 2004, the charity's tax records show.

Chirag Patel, president of IMTS Services LLC, which bought D.N. American in 2005, didn't return two phone calls seeking comment.

NOAA's Computers

TMC Technologies Inc., also based in Fairmont, won a $5 million federal contract in May 2004 to overhaul the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's computer storage system, according to a press release by one of the company's subcontractors.

That year TMC gave $5,000 to the foundation. The company supports the charity because of its success in keeping West Virginia students from leaving the state to pursue their careers, said TMC President Wade Linger. TMC was bought by Greenbelt, Maryland-based Global Science and Technology Inc. in 2005.

``Generally these kind of contributions are made by successful businesspeople,'' Linger said. ``An awful lot of successful businesspeople in this state know Congressman Mollohan.''

Since 2001, Linger and his wife gave at least $54,450 to Mollohan's political committees and his company and employees gave another $20,950, according to Federal Election Commission records.

In all, the donor list includes 43 companies that gave to the Mollohan Foundation. They include nine of the top 10 contributors to Mollohan's reelection campaign in 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington- based group that tracks political fund-raising.

Biggest Donors

Among the biggest donors to the charitable foundation were three nonprofit groups set up under Mollohan's leadership that gave $48,427 in 2004, the records show.

One of them, the Institute for Scientific Research Inc., gave $30,000. It received at least $100 million in Mollohan- sponsored projects, the lawmaker told the New York Times in April.

``I have been very pleased to support the Mollohan Foundation and intend to continue to support it in the future,'' said Jim Estep, who heads the institute and the West Virginia High Technology Consortium Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by Mollohan that has donated to the foundation.

Other donors include the National Housing Development Corp., a Rancho Cucamonga, California-based nonprofit company that is working with a Mollohan-backed organization, the Vandalia Heritage Foundation, to refurbish houses in Wheeling, West Virginia. The housing corporation donated $20,000 to the Mollohan Foundation and Vandalia gave $10,000.

So all this illustrates why we've adopted a new anti-earmark slogan: "Earmarks! Look what they're doing for Alan Mollohan!" Feel free to substitute any other appropriate name, as needed.

Mollohan faces a real challenger this year in Delegate Chris Wakim. He is up to his neck in questions about earmarks and personal finances. And his Congressional district gave 57% of its vote to Bush in 2004. I have to think that his name will soon be high on the list of potential takeovers this fall.

Also, you have to wonder - if this Mollohan controversy continues to grow, what effect will it have on the re-election bid of Robert Byrd? Byrd is the king of the earmark, and has always been proud of it. Will West Virginia voters start to wonder whether this is a good thing?

Back to the top.