The Most Beautiful Woman in the World

Scientists say it's Naomi Campbell?

I really hope not...

Senate Democrats Unveil their Bug-Out Plan

Roll Call ($) reports:

After weeks of behind-the-scenes wrangling, Senate Democrats emerged Thursday from a closed-door meeting with details of a new Iraq resolution calling for phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from that country beginning within three months.

The joint resolution, which is binding, would set specific goals for President Bush’s Iraq War policy including that the withdrawal of forces begin no later than 120 days after the bill is enacted and that a goal of a complete redeployment be achieved by March 31, 2008.

Democratic leaders said a binding resolution would go to the floor as early as next Tuesday, with debate spanning at least a week. Republicans would get the chance to offer three competing alternatives, while Senate Democrats may get the chance to put out a second proposal as well, sources said.

“We feel very strongly in our position,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “Whether any Republicans will join us, we don’t know.”

Democrats suggested that a good share — perhaps as many as 50 of 51 of their Caucus — will back their latest resolution. It remains unclear whether Reid will seek a minimal threshold of 50 or 60 votes for the measure, and other GOP alternatives...

So House and Senate Democrats are largely in agreement; they want to be out of Iraq as soon as practicable, and they are willing to support binding legislation to accomplish this. I really wonder what Roll Call means when they say that the Senate measure could get as many as 50 of the 51 Democratic Senators. Do they mean that Tim Johnson won't vote for it, or that they might lose Joe Lieberman's support?

I believe that the former is true, regardless. As far as I know, Tim Johnson is not returning to the Senate next week. If the latter is true - that Lieberman won't support it - then they might not even have the support of half the Senate.

In either case, this demonstrates that Dave Obey is more right than he suspects. There is no way the Democrats have the votes to end the Iraq conflict. The sooner the nutroots accept this, the better for the Democrats.

It looks like no one wants to bring them 'the bad news,' however.

Unnoticed: Kudos to Pelosi

The Speaker has decided not to file an objection against the raid by the Department of Justice on Bill Jefferson's office. While I have criticized House Democrats for not living up to promises in a range of areas, this is one area of improvement:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided against filing a motion with a federal appeals court objecting to last year's FBI raid on Rep. William Jefferson's Capitol Hill office, according to Democratic insiders.

Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had considered such a motion, had indicated she would not move forward unless joined by Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and other senior Republicans, the sources said.

But the fact that she even considered such a move and had discussed the issue with her colleagues shows how concerned top lawmakers remain about the unprecedented nature of the FBI raid.

OMB to Post All Earmarks

And they're taking still more steps to force greater transparency in the future.

The Hill reports:

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will step up the administration’s effort to cut earmarks by posting on its website next week all earmarks identified by federal agencies in fiscal year 2005 appropriations bills.

The effort is designed to create a baseline for reducing the total number and cost of earmarks by half, a goal set out by President Bush at the beginning of the year. OMB is using fiscal year 2005 appropriations bills because it sees that year as the most representative and recent year for earmarks.

OMB also asked federal agencies to provide data by Feb. 28 on earmarks in certain authorization bills, such as the 2002 farm bill and 2007 Department of Defense Authorization Act. In a January memo, OMB Director Rob Portman set a March 7 deadline for OMB to complete a review of submissions, and a March 12 deadline for posting information on the Internet.

OMB spokeswoman Christin Baker said the work has proved to be a massive undertaking, and the posting could slip past March 12. But she said OMB’s goal is to post the earmarks next week...

This is great news. But OMB is also setting up a new policy that may ultimately force Congress to write all earmarks directly into statutory text, instead of report language. The effect of this change should not be underestimated.

Right now, the vast majority of earmarks are written into committee reports that received little attention. Indeed, they can even be hard to find. OMB is adopting a policy that report language will no longer be treated as if it were statute - the de facto policy right now:

Separately, Portman last month issued a directive calling on agencies to de-fund earmarks that are not explicitly spelled out in statutory text. This would prevent funding for thousands of earmarks included in report language or other written or oral communications from Congress, according to the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste...

Officials at two government watchdog groups said the OMB’s posting of earmarks should put more pressure on the government to reduce the number of earmarks attached by lawmakers to appropriations bills and other legislation.

“We’re happy with any step the administration of Congress can take to put light on the earmark process,” said Erich Zimmermann, a senior policy analyst for Taxpayers for Common Sense, which monitors earmarks. “Anything that increases pressure on Congress to reduce the number and cost of earmarks is helpful,” agreed Thomas Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste.

If this policy holds up through the Bush administration and beyond, it will be very hard for future Congresses to hide their pork-barrel spending.

Rob Portman, Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, and the other Members of the House and Senate who pushed for this policy deserve a great deal of credit.

Update: Welcome Hugh Hewitt readers and thanks, Patrick, for the traffic. While you're here check out Harry Reid's plan to hold a vote this week on pulling out of Iraq - or just look around.

Marvel's Civil War & Killing Captain America

They say write about what you know, so here goes...

The problem at the heart of Marvel's Civil War was a political false comparison.

Here's the plot:

• A throwaway 1990s superhero team, the Young Warriors, acts rashly and as a result wipes a huge chunk of Stamford, CT off the map, killing themselves and hundreds of civilians.


• Public opinion turns against superheroes and the government passes the SuperHero Registration Act.


• The Act requires two things: all superhumans must register with SHIELD and, if said superhumans wish to operate as heroes, they must be trained by, certified by, and operate under the auspices of SHIELD.


• This leads to a schism in the hero community with Captain America leading the anti-Registration Act forces and Iron Man leading the Pro-Registration Act Forces.


• The Anti-Reg forces go underground. Many typical superhero mega-battles ensue.


• The climactic massive battle takes place in the middle of Manhattan and as he is just about to put Iron Man out for the count, Captain America is jumped by a dozen cops, firemen, and EMTs who are putting their lives on the line to protect civilians, property, etc.


• Cap realizes that he's no longer fighting for the people, he's just fighting, and he's not winning the argument against the Act. So he surrenders, tells his allies to stand down, and hands himself over to Federal custody. The War is over.


• Cap is gunned down on his way into Court. Who is responsible? The Red Skull, of course.

The problem with Civil War isn't the story. This could have been a great way to reeenergize Marvel and to inject a little realism (always a dangerous word when you're talking about comics) into the Marvel Universe. CW cleaned up some of the standard comic book cliches. Is the public really going to stand for a bunch of massively-powered vigilantes hiding behind secret identities? Or supervillians that seem to break out of prison every other week? Probably not. It also straightens out some Marvel-specific nonsense. The Marvel public has hated and feared its mutant population since the 1960s and The Mutant Registration Act has been a canard of the X-Men since the 1980s. But non-mutant heroes have been warmly received. It's never been clear why genetically-enhanced superhumans are more of a threat than those who get their powers from a radioactive spider bite. And exactly how long is the public supposed to put up with the Hulk popping up, tearing apart whole city blocks, and then quietly on? CW and its related stories cleaned up all this.

The problem with CW is parts of Marvel and many of its fans keep framing the story as being a reflection on the post-9/11 world, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, etc, and a statement on trading security for liberty. There's no place for Captain America and other staunch defenders of personal freedom in this new age. The public has turned against him.

And that's where the False Comparison comes in. Nothing in the plot is anywhere near as big an issue as the Patriot Act or Gitmo. The Superhero Registration Act is basically the comic book world equivalent of gun control, close to a no-brainer. You have to register the fact you have a superpower and if you wish to use it in service of law and order you have to be an actual law enforcment officer. I know that some people are anti-gun registration, but this is a far cry from the debate around the Patriot Act. And I'm pretty sure the comics fan who think Cap should have kept up the fight against post 9/11 fascism are the kind of people who go out and consistently vote for more gun control. The politics in CW make no sense.

Two asides:

1) Mark Millar, the writer of CW, has commented that Iron Man's side was the right side. Why? "Had he not come up with this idea of them being licensed by the government, they'd all be getting crushed by Sentinels right now". If you just keep it on this level, CW is a great Marvel story.

2) All that being said, why did Marvel "really kill" Captain America? To sell more comic books of course.

Thompson's Effect on the Race

With the recent focus on the possibility that Fred Thompson will seek the Presidency, I commented that I think his entry would crowd out Romney and set up a fight between him and Giuliani. Supporting this conclusion is a poll by Kieran Mahoney that recently received a lot of attention:

New York-based political consultant Kieran Mahoney's survey of probable Republican participants in the 2008 Iowa presidential caucuses showed this support for the "big three" candidates: John McCain, 20.5 percent; Rudy Giuliani, 16.3 percent; Mitt Romney, 3.5 percent. Astonishingly, they all trailed James Gilmore, the former governor of Virginia, who had 31 percent.

How could that be? Because it was not a legitimate survey but a "push poll," normally a clandestine effort to rig the results by telling respondents negative things about some of the candidates. But Mahoney makes no secret that the voters he sampled were told of liberal deviations by McCain, Giuliani and Romney, as well as true-blue conservatism by Gilmore, who is Mahoney's client.

Mahoney is trying to prove a point widely accepted in Republican ranks. None of the three front-line candidates is a natural fit for the nation's right-of-center party. Without question, there is a void. The question is whether Gilmore or anyone else can fill it.

I suspect that Fred Thompson would very quickly fill that void - the missing 'real conservative.' I don't know that he would instantly leap to 31 percent, but he would certainly pass the other leading contenders.

I'm surprised at the strength shown by McCain in Mahoney's poll. I question whether that would hold with Thompson in the race.

Frank Miller

Philo's correct that 300 is the best immediate response to Marvel's misguided Civil War, but the Mad Genius that brought us 300, Sin City, The Dark Knight Returns, etc. has a project in the pipeline that's the "perfect" response.

Holy Terror, Batman!

Hagel May Retire

The Hill reports that Chuck Hagel may announce his retirement on Monday.

I would welcome such a move, although I believe the Hill places too much confidence in Nebraska's 'redness.' It seems to me that an open Senate seat might lean Republican - all things being equal - but that a strong Democratic candidate would probably do just fine there.

Happy Birthday, Dear Osama...

Unless he's dead (or dies around the time you read this), Osama bin Laden 'celebrates' his 50th birthday on Saturday.

What are the chances he gets the present that he richly deserves?

Maybe not so bad.

Is John McCain's Candidacy Over?

So there may soon be two new entrants into the Republican Presidential field for 2008. One is a John McCain wanna-be, who is nowhere near as popular as McCain among the rank-and-file. (And yes, that means he's awfully unpopular). Put him down as either an also-ran, or an independent candidacy. In that latter capacity, he might well hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans, by splitting the anti-Iraq war vote.

The other is a good friend of John McCain, who apparently stayed out of the race at least in part out of deference to him. If he steps in, he will instantly become the strongest conservative - and he may wind up sucking up all the oxygen that Mitt Romney is currently using, and leaving it a two-man race with Rudy Giuliani. Thompson would be a very serious contender.

But are these signs that McCain's candidacy is no longer seen as viable, or is it a signal (from friends) that he should get out?

Democrats Step into the Trap

So the Democrats are proposing a supplemental funding bill that requires an end to US participation in Iraq.

I've laid out before that while the American people may not like our involvement in Iraq, they won't stand for having the lives of America's men and women in the field being endangered over this important policy point.

The President will win this showdown - particularly since the bill may never even come to the floor of the Senate. He will explain that he will debate any policy difference and listen to any good idea, but of paramount importance is giving our troops in harm's way the tools they need to defende themselves. He will insist that Congress send him a clean bill promptly, and every day they delay doing that will cost them in the public eye.

This is what the President will do:

He'll note that the author of the provisions first publicly discussed them in an interview he did for a liberal anti-war organization, and said that they were designed to force a withdrawal from Iraq. He'll spell out what is included in the supplemental bill, and talk about why it is essential. He'll say that the Congressional leadership is recklessly risking the lives of our men and women in harm's way, by denying them needed funds and equipment, and that it is essential Congress send him a 'clean' bill immediately. He'll say that American lives should not be risked over a disagreement between the White House and Congress.

Bush will re-iterate that he is always ready to discuss honest policy differences with anyone, including Mr. Murtha - and that the change in direction implemented after listening to the recommendations and findings of the Iraq Study Commission demonstrate his sincerity. He'll say that Prime Minister Maliki is committed to having the Iraqi government assume all security responsibilities in a matter of a few months, and it is foolish to quit on them now.

He'll ask Congress to return to work immediately on a bill that he can sign, and he'll offer to meet with Mr. Murtha, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Reid - and anyone else that Congress wants to send - to discuss this critical mission, but stress the importance of supporting our troops.

The Democrats are going to lose this fight - a fact they probably already know. They're charging into the guns for the benefit of the lunatic Left which, as Dave Obey knows, won't even support them on this.

Their goal will be to cave at the right time - before it becomes too politically costly.

Freeze Kim Jong Il!

The Army is working on a paralysis beam:

The U.S. Army is working on a modified 7.5-million-candlepower strobe light in hopes of creating a paralysis beam.

Although details are sketchy, it appears that U.S. government acquisition records call for contractor Peak Systems to ...

"...design and fabricate a light-based immobilisation system/deterrent device and integrate it with an unmanned aerial system. This will include any necessary medical research on frequency and amplitude modulation of high-intensity light that will cause immobilisation to all those within the beam."

The Peak Beam Systems device can apparently be pulsed with a strobe effect that has some effect on the human nervous system. The Maxa Beam shown above has quite a range, too. It can illuminate targets as far as 1.5 miles away.

The Maxa Beam is small enough to be hand-held, which is a vital factor in the US Army's selection of the device. The ultimate goal is to mount the device on a UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) for crowd-control...

This device also may remind fans of classic Star Trek of a device that appeared in the 1965 episode Dagger of the Mind - the neural neutralizer.

Take this all with a grain of salt, since the author can't even get his Star Trek right.

The neural neutralizer was more of a mind eraser than a paralysis beam (and before you ask yes, I do recall that the Klingon mind sifter was more of a mind ripper than a sifter).

Oh - and Dagger of the Mind was first broadcast in 1966.

To be honest, my mind ran more to the belt devices worn by the Kelvans in 'By Any Other Name.' Although some may differ, I would almost entirely discount the simple magic wands used by Sylvia and Korob in 'Catspaw,' since I regard obvious halloween episodes as virtually out of the canon...

Still, cool device.

Dave Obey on the Perils of Overpromising

He states the obvious: Congress can't muster the votes to end the war in Iraq.

Some people haven't figured that out yet.

Rep. Obey: "We're trying to use the supplemental to end the war. But you can't end the war if you vote against the supplemental. It's time these idiot liberals understand that."

"Liberal groups are jumping around without knowing what the hell is in the bill."

We don't have the votes to pass [Rep. Lee's Amendment]. We couldn't even get the votes to pass a nonbinding resolution one week ago. How the hell do you think we're going to get the votes to cut off the war?"

"I'm the sponsor of the bill that's going to be on floor. And that bill ends the war. If that's not good enough for you you're smoking something illegal...

"You've got your facts screwed up ... we can't get the votes! You see a magic wand in my pocket? How the hell we going to get the votes for it? We ain't got the votes for it. We do have the votes if you guys quit screwing it up."

Time Travel Impossible - Maybe

Impossible? That's not what 60-year old me told me when he visited me at age 14 and told me the Cubs would win the 2027 World Series.

It's the best $5 bet I ever made:

Mathematically, you can certainly say something is traveling to the past, Liu said. “But it is not possible for you and me to travel backward in time,” he said.

However, some scientists believe that traveling to the past is, in fact, theoretically possible, though impractical.

Maybe if there were a theory of everything, one could solve all of Einstein’s equations through a wormhole, and see whether time travel is really possible, Kaku said. “But that would require a technology far more advanced than anything we can muster," he said. "Don’t expect any young inventor to announce tomorrow in a press release that he or she has invented a time machine in their basement.”

For now, the only definitive part of travel in the fourth dimension is that we’re stepping further into the future with each passing moment. So for those hoping to see Earth a million years from now, scientists have good news.

ΜΟΛΩΝΛΑΒΕ

The perfect antidote to Marvel's thumbsucking flight from masculinity.

Just go.

If a Tedious Bore Drones on in a Windswept Field...

He will make a sound if he fulminates in a manner the liberal media finds politically expedient.

Word in the coffeeshops (or as Nebraskans call them--"the cuhFAYs") is that Hagel wants his moment of moral posturing in the sun and is willing to terminate his local grassroots support in order to do so. A USAToday poll back in November indicated the extent to which his posturing had alienated Nebraska's perennial Republican majority.

The puff piece in Esquire, where he speculated grandiosely about Bush's impeachment, should have served sufficiently final notice that Chuck is not really in tune with the concerns or worldview of the average Nebraskan any longer. Given this fact, and Hagel's statistical insignificance in Presidential polling, it is clear that the sole reason this announcement will be given any more attention than Chris Dodd's negligible campaign is that the media has found a fresh Republican face willing to vent spleen against the current administration on national television.

Fred Thompson Rumors Laid to Rest

So to speak.

He would be our first President elected post-mortem, unless you count Al Gore:

Fred Thompson, 88, of Orchid Drive, Grove City, formerly of Clintonville, died Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2007, in the Grove City Medical Center after a brief illness.

Born Aug. 22, 1918, in Cherry Run, Clarion County, he was the son of James Glenn and Mary Jane Hawk Thompson.

He attended the public schools in Cherry Run, Clarion County.

Dreier Shows up Dem Hypocrisy

So House Democrats care so much about greenhouse gas emissions and global warming that they're forming a special panel to address this crisis. Speaker Pelosi insists that the House pass legislation by July 4.

To help House Democrats demonstrate how serious this effort is, Rules Committee Ranking Member David Dreier offered an amendment to require that the new panel operate in a carbon-neutral manner.

Guess how Democrats reacted:

Dreier also proposed an amendment to make the new committee function in a carbon-neutral fashion. It was a move praised by some on the panel, who said Congress needs to look at ways to become more environmentally friendly.

But Dreier’s amendment was voted down, with Democrats arguing they did not want to force the new panel to do anything potentially cumbersome so early on.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) argued that the creation of the new committee is important, as “Mother Nature is on life support because of 12 years of the Republican majority.”

Mother Nature is in trouble if she's on life support while the Democrats are in charge. In general they've seemed pretty eager to pull the plug in cases like this.

I must confess - I don't get this. I thought global warming was the single greatest threat to the existence of mankind? I thought that the calculation of your carbon footprint and the purchase of carbon offsets was simple and straightforward? Isn't this exactly the right place to start to change the way we do business?

I mean, it's not like this work is 'too important' to be carbon neutral, right? Eventually everything that we do - including things as important as medical care and national defense - will need to try to be carbon neutral, right? So why is the Democratic House of Representatives not willing to put its money where its mouth is.

It's almost like they don't take global warming seriously.

House Dems Going After Iraq Spies

It's not what you think.

Roll Call ($) reports that House Democratic leaders are upset that some Members are leaking information about their plans for the Iraq supplemental bill. They've planted false info to smoke out the offenders:

Internal divisions within the majority have slowed progress on the measure as Democratic leaders have sought to balance the demands of more conservative members with those of the party’s progressive, anti-war faction.

But Obey said he laid blame for much of that divisiveness on “leaks” about the bill, criticizing those lawmakers who have provided information to the media before the details have been finalized.

“Our primary problem has been that Members don’t know what’s in it,” Obey said of the spending bill. Those admissions, he added, have prompted unnecessary arguments within the Caucus: “Then [Members are] reacting to something that really isn’t on the table.”

In an effort to battle those disclosures, Obey acknowledged that he recently disseminated false information during a closed-door meeting on the spending bill in an effort to identify the source of the leaks.

On Tuesday, “when I read the paper I figured out who two of those people were,” Obey added, although he declined to identify the lawmakers, including whether they are members of the Appropriations panel. He also refused to discuss the false information that he provided. Those individuals “will not be invited to further meetings,” he added.

Rumor has it they are also being put on double secret probation, and they must wear 'I Love Ann Coulter' hats.

The Out of Iraq Caucus meanwhile, is trying to make clear that they don't want to cut funds for the troops at all. They say this is a misrepresenation. They fully support giving the troops every penny they need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible:

In the meantime, the Progressive Caucus, which has sought language in the supplemental requiring the withdrawal of all troops from Iraq, is slated to unveil its proposal this morning to fund such an effort.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) described the measure Wednesday as a “fully funded withdrawal.”

“The press and a lot of people have continually misrepresented what people are doing here. This is not cutting off funds,” Nadler said. “We want to provide the funds, but we want to limit the use of the funds.”

Under the proposal, both existing and future funds could be used for troop withdrawal and economic reconstruction in Iraq, but could not be used to further the war effort, Nadler explained.

“We’re not cutting the funds by a nickel,” he added. While Nadler said the Progressive Caucus would like to see the language included in the supplemental bill itself, lawmakers likely will have to offer the measure as an amendment to the spending bill.

While the proposal will call for the withdrawal to be completed by the end of 2007, Nadler said that date could be changed. “Obviously we’d be willing to talk,” he said.

Nice to see that they're very open, and willing to discuss any plan to declare defeat and come home as quickly as possible.

And House Republicans are not afraid to vote against a bad bill. Adam Putnam lays out the strategy:

House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (Fla.) refuted the idea that Republicans are taking a political risk by potentially voting down a spending bill to provide funds to troops in combat.

“We could vote for a clear wartime supplemental before supper tomorrow,” he said. “The reason why this is so complicated is because the Democrats are making it complicated to pacify the third of their Caucus who wants to immediately cut off funds to the troops, the third of their Caucus who would like to cut off funds for the troops but don’t want credit for it, and the third of their Caucus that ran as Republicans and are running away from the other two-thirds of their colleagues.”

I've noted before that the Democrats court trouble if they pass a bill that the President will veto. I strongly suspect that with his bully pulpit, and the tendency of voters to err on the side of the troops, he'll put the Democrats in a very bad spot politically if he argues that their proposal is too gummed up with red tape and misplaced priorities, and he needs a clean bill that he can sign to ensure the safety of men and women in harm's way.

Update: The Hill meanwhile, suggests that the Democratic leadership bill will require a withdrawal if the Iraqi government fails to meet certain benchmarks - but it's apparently non-binding:

House Democratic leaders have settled on a tentative proposal to require the Iraqi government to meet a series of benchmarks and, if they miss meeting those conditions, U.S. troops would begin a phased redeployed by a certain date, said a Democratic aide.

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said he would present the plan to freshman Democrats and the centrist Blue Dog Democrats.

“I’m looking for the center of gravity in the House,” Obey said. “People need to understand, we’re not a bunch of Thomas Jeffersons writing the Declaration of Independence. This language is not going to be language for the ages.”

“We’ve made many, many changes,” Obey said. “We hope we will be able to lay out a fairly complete package.”

Meanwhile, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) met with members of the Progressive Caucus late yesterday afternoon.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), co-chairwoman of the Progressive Caucus, did not seem keen to endorse the proposal.

“There’s no enforcement mechanism,” she said. “We have had the same thing in place for two years and we’re expecting [Bush] to do something, who has no intention of working with us?”

Mr. Obey is to put it generously, misspeaking. He is not looking for the 'center of gravity' in the House. He's trying to earn the backing of a significant majority of the Democratic caucus. And if he does not give the Out of Iraq caucus a vote on their idea, I don't see how this can work.

How Does this Help Hillary?

Can she benefit at all by having more attention called to a candidacy in disarray?