The American Parthenon

Guilt by association...

2008-06-17T14:26:00.000-07:00

Powerline (which can do much better than this) quotes at length one of Sen. McCain's top foreign policy advisers, one former CIA Director James Woolsey, on the supposed wrongheadedness of Sen. Obama's intention to return to a more law enforcement-centric method of combating terrorism. That the conservative blog favours McCain's position over Obama's ought to surprise nobody (the merits of both are certainly debatable, and there are plenty of 'experts' supporting each side) but Woolsey appears to be an extraordinarily disreputable source. He was on television the day after Sept. 11 suggesting Iraqi sponsorship of the attacks, and suggested in 2006 that the United States ought to unilaterally bomb Syria.

It ought to also come as no surprise that the Project for the New American Century member may also be a merchant of death, simultaneously supporting the invasion of Iraq (in fact serving on the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq) while also profiting from its prosecution.

Here is Rightweb on Woolsey and his connections: "Former CIA Director James Woolsey is a principal in the Paladin Capital Group, a venture-capital firm that, like [Richard] Perle's Trireme Partners, is soliciting investment for homeland security firms. Woolsey joined consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton as vice president in July 2002. The company had contracts worth more than $680 million in 2002. Woolsey told the Wall Street Journal that he does no lobbying and that none of the companies he has ties to have been discussed during a Defense Policy Board meeting."

If the guilt-by-association standard is to be applied throughout this election - which I generally don't support - let it be done fairly, to both candidates.

Super-Earths discovered in Doradus and Pictor

2008-06-17T06:25:00.000-07:00

And the roll call of extrasolar planets grows rather splendidly:

"European researchers said on Monday they discovered a batch of three "super-Earths" orbiting a nearby star, and two other solar systems with small planets as well.

They said their findings, presented at a conference in France, suggest that Earth-like planets may be very common."

Ezra Klein, on the self-perpetuating cycle of discrimination

2008-06-16T12:52:00.001-07:00

If anyone can think of a politically acceptable way to solve this, I may write in your name for president.

"The passive workplace discrimination and the passive shifting of personal responsibilities sadly work to reinforce each other. Guys in the workplace don't see why women can't do what they did, and guys at home justify their reduced housework by pointing to their demanding jobs. Conversely, women have more housework and childcare responsibilities, and thus less time to devote to the workplace and less of the scheduling flexibility that's currently required for advancement. So men advance professionally, and justify their personal habits on those grounds, and women pick up the slack, and thus don't advance as far professionally."

Alterman, on the Guantanamo decision

2008-06-16T12:41:00.000-07:00

Dr. Alterman 1, Wall Street Journal editorial board 0:

"It is their considered judgment, goes their reasoning insofar as it is intelligible to yours truly, that by insisting on the right to trial, habeas corpus, etc., the justices are treating the Constitution as if it were a suicide pact. And in fact, by allowing these people who have been held now for six or so years without charges the right to trial, the United States is, in fact, committing suicide.

That strikes me as a testable proposition."

Honda rolls out zero-emissions FCX Clarity

2008-06-16T12:10:00.000-07:00

About as awesome as it gets. Maybe there's hope after all.

Al Franken wins DFL endorsement and is taken more seriously

2008-06-16T12:04:00.000-07:00

Via The Economist --

"AN IMPLAUSIBLE politician has just become somewhat less so. On June 7th Al Franken, a former comedian on “Saturday Night Live”, radio commentator and author of books such as “Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: a Fair and Balanced Look at the Right”, won the endorsement of Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labour party (DFL) for the post of senator. "

I think he's going to win. I hope so, if only for the justice served of him taking over the seat of his late friend Paul Wellstone.

The undeserved 'Maverick' reputation

2008-06-16T11:53:00.000-07:00

So much has been written recently about how undeserved is Sen. McCain's reputation as an anti-partisan Maverick that it almost seems like beating a dead dog at this point. Indeed he is not conservative enough for the talk-radio circuit (although one wonders if anybody short of G. Gordon Liddy could be).

Here, though, is Factcheck (via Congressional Quarterly) with the actual numbers on 'Maverick-ism' or the lack thereof: McCain voted with the president's position 95 percent of the time in 2007, and in no year has voted with the president's position less than 77 percent of the time, as in 2005.

Sen. Obama voted with the president's position 40 percent of the time last year, and Sen. Reid of Nevada did so 39 percent of the time. Obama voted with the Democrats 97 percent of the time in 2007.

The Conventional Wisdom on the VP choice

2008-06-15T02:13:00.000-07:00

The conventional wisdom of a brief poll of international bloggers seems to be that Sen. Obama will choose Sen. Clinton. Here is the Australian John Quiggin:

"My record tipping elections is not great, though I called the 2007 election for Labor ahead of most pundits. It remains to be seen whether I’ll get even a passing grade on my prediction, in January, of a relatively narrow win for an Obama-Clinton ticket over McCain-Lieberman for the Republicans. I’ve got the nominees right, and Hillary for VP seems like a no-brainer."

A Canadian Perspective on Obama's VP choice

2008-06-15T02:05:00.001-07:00

The blogger Warren Kinsella:

"But she and Bill will be an even bigger handful if they are outside the tent. And the two of them give Obama - an Ivy League Yankee liberal - some much-needed Southland blue Democrat DNA. And her baggage is old news (whilst Obama's is still newsworthy, and is about to be wheeled out to the National Enquirer and Fox News, within days, just wait).

This insane war in Iraq needs to end, and the U.S. economy needs to get back to what it had been under Bill. America needs some hope again."

Iraq looks better, but is nowhere near secure

2008-06-15T01:58:00.001-07:00

Via The Economist:

"THOUGH still lacerated by the tragedy of the past five years, Iraq is at last getting better all round. The violence, albeit still ferocious in parts of the country, has subsided dramatically. The American military “surge” that began a year ago has worked better than even the optimists had hoped, helped by ceasefires with Shia militias, by accords with Sunni tribal leaders and by the fact that sectarian cleansing in many areas is sadly complete."

Hilarious

2008-06-15T00:43:00.000-07:00

From the woman who also believes that the New Deal was a bad idea and that Joe McCarthy was a great American hero:

"I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible [For the record: Ms. Coulter is talking about President Bush] for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents."

Here is a survey of hundreds of professional historians (as opposed to professional bloviators, like Ms. Coulter) who disagree:

"Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations."

Timothy John Russert jr.

2008-06-14T10:20:00.000-07:00

I don't have much to add regarding the sudden death of the excellent journalist Tim Russert, except that his exceptional interviewing talents will be remembered by friend and foe. My first impulse when something like this happens - an apparently healthy person is just here one day, gone the next - is to really start appreciating the lives of myself and those around me. You never know - you could wake up one day at a surprise party in your honor on Alpha Centauri. And then that feeling of appreciation fades and I once again become one of the tightly wound fools that gets REALLY ANGRY when somebody cuts me off in traffic or the cat pees on one of my shirts.

Life is too short, you know? As the great Warren Zevon put it, enjoy every sandwich.

We ought to resist furiously those who would sully the memories of deceased political enemies, even if those sullyers happen to be political allies. Like any of us, he had dreams, joys, hopes, insecurities, fears, loves, loved ones, hobbies and faults. In short, he was a decent human being. The troglodytes leaving snotty comments on blogs ought to be put well and truly in their places.

Obama's international stature

2008-06-11T18:42:00.001-07:00

It's safe to say that the Senator is more popular overseas than at home. Columnists all over the world, like Dr. Sylvester Odion-Akhaine (writing in The Guardian, printed in Lagos), are hanging an awful lot of symbolism on Sen. Obama's candidacy.

"It will applaud the Statue of Liberty and underline U.S. as the bastion of freedom and racial equality despite its abiding contradictions. This is the meaning of Obama's victory. It is left for Americans to choose between 'fear and faith' on one hand and freedom and equality on the other."

There are those, such as Instapundit, who believe that Sen. Obama's international popularity is somehow a sign that he should be unpopular at home. If I live to be a thousand I don't think I will understand that logic.

UPDATE - The link to the Nigerian's column is dead for some reason. I admit I'm something of a neophyte at this. If interested, just google his name along with 'the meaning of Obama's victory' and I'm sure the full story will come up.

A catalyst for change

2008-06-11T18:25:00.000-07:00

From The Economist, which correctly points out that high oil prices can have an upside --

"Right now motorists have no substitute for oil. But it is no coincidence that car companies are suddenly accelerating their plans to sell electric hybrids that are far cheaper to run than petrol or diesel cars at these prices. The first two oil shocks banished oil from power generation. How fitting if the third finished the job and began to free transport from oil's century-long monopoly."

I'm dubious about windfall profits taxes

2008-06-10T13:39:00.000-07:00

And so is Powerline. Here is John Hinderaker's excellent post on the Senate's blocking cloture vote of the WPT. Sens. Obama, Clinton and McCain were all absent.

"Our oil companies control tiny amounts of petroleum (relative to the world's big players) because they are shackled by Congress, which prohibits them by law from accessing America's abundant petroleum reserves. If you want gasoline prices to come down, write, call and email your Congressman and Senators and tell them to allow the oil companies to do what only they can do: bring us more oil."

You probably don't want to go there...

2008-06-10T08:37:00.000-07:00

A video/audio recording of Sen. Obama has been making the rounds (not surprisingly - at all - Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity ran with this non-story on the same day) recently purporting to reveal many 'gaffes' on the campaign trail, supposed to demonstrate something negative about the Senator, though I'm not sure what. He stutters a couple of times, incorrectly identifies a handful of cities, accidentally refers to an asthma inhaler a breathylizer, and loses his train of thought discussing the cost of a program.

The Senator is, of course, talking a great deal lately. And, as any human being would when asked to speak extemporaneously for several hours a day, he has missed a beat or two. Conservatives may not want to get into a discussion of silly-sounding politicians. Nor silly-sounding candidates.

All of these are non-issues. Obama knows what an inhaler is; Sen. McCain knows who Vladimir Putin is. Speech, unlike blogging, has no backspace button. Those hyping these events are trying to score lazy cheap shots.

A sensible 'war on terror.'

2008-06-09T14:46:00.000-07:00

From the Los Angeles Times: food instead of bombs, undercutting the radicals' support instead of helping them recruit with every bomb dropped --

"In Gaza and the West Bank, for example, where the [United States Agency for International Development] spent $50 million in 2007, the agency ran a publicity campaign to draw attention to its efforts and then polled to assess the results. The percentage of Palestinians who knew the Arabic name for the agency rose from 32% to 52% in less than a year, the percentage of hard-core rejectionists who oppose accepting U.S. government assistance dropped from 47% to 43%, and the percentage who believed the agency was sincere about helping the Palestinian people rose to 67%. Such gains won't usher in Middle East peace tomorrow, but they do demonstrate that it is possible to change attitudes even among one of the world's most embittered populations in a relatively short time.

Polling by the nonprofit group Terror Free Tomorrow also indicates that direct humanitarian aid improves the perception of the United States even among Pakistani Muslims who express support for Al Qaeda. Skeptics say that the public opinion bounce from humanitarian aid is short-lived. But the data show the reverse: Nearly three years after the massive tsunami relief effort, almost 60% of Indonesians said the aid had made them favorable toward the U.S."

Annenberg Factcheck, on the Gas Tax holiday

2008-06-09T14:31:00.000-07:00

A transfer of revenue essentially from the government to the oil companies.

Earmarks - overblown and overhyped

2008-06-09T12:49:00.000-07:00

Alterman has the numbers on earmarks, the latest government waste buzzword that amounts to really less than a drop in the bucket --

"For the record:

Total value of all earmarks for 2008 (good and wasteful), projected: $17 billion, or 0.5 percent of total federal spending

Contrast that cost with, for example, the war in Iraq:

Cost of Iraq war per month in 2008: $12 billion (For the year, that's 4.2 percent total spending.)"

Here is the government's database of earmarks, which regrettably doesn't separate them by individual congressional sponsor. And here are the Citizens Against Government Waste, who believe Earmarks are a Really Big Deal.

This just in...

2008-06-09T09:47:00.001-07:00

Sen. McCain has crazy supporters (via Americablog, through Instaputz). So does Sen. Obama (via Powerline).

Does any of this have any bearing on anything? Are Powerline, Little Green Footballs and Instapundit* trying to score cheap political points with their already skittish readership?**

No. And yes.

* Instaputz is of course not scoring cheap political points, since TS mentions the insanity of both candidates' supporters, via a link to Instapundit.

**They must be counting on their readers to spread the word, since nobody who had any intention whatsoever of voting for Sen. Obama would ever read any of those blogs for information.

The Real Numbers on Missed Votes

2008-06-09T02:57:00.000-07:00

The top three vote-missing Senators for this session, and their corresponding percentages of votes missed out of the total, are as follows - Sen. John McCain, 60.4%; Sen. Tim Johnson (The South Dakota Senator who suffered a stroke in 2007), 53.3%; Sen. Barack Obama, 42%.

Oddly enough, the workaholics - those who haven't missed a single vote - are not generally household names: John Barrasso, Bob Casey, Susan Collins, Russ Feingold, Charles Grassley, Herb Kohl, Mark Pryor, Kenneth Salazar, and Olympia Snowe.

Comparison of Financial Transparency

2008-06-09T02:41:00.000-07:00

According to www.opensecrets.org, Sen. Obama has disclosed 94 percent of his funding sources, while Sen. McCain has disclosed 87 percent.

Who ought to be lecturing who about funding sources?

And from the Jerusalem Post...

2008-06-08T08:50:00.000-07:00

Ministers of the Knesset (MK's) weigh in on Sen. Obama's clinching of the nomination. The Likud Party, not suprisingly, is the most upset, while the other parties' representatives all say, essentially, that 'both will be good but McCain will be better.'

-----

'Following US Sen. Barack Obama's victory over Sen. Hillary Clinton early Wednesday morning, MKs from across the political spectrum warned not to discount the newly-crowned Democratic candidate as a potential supporter of Israel.

"We must remember that no American president will act in the way that we fear the most - no matter which candidate, Israel is important to American non-Jews," said MK Benny Elon (NU/NRP), the leader of the Knesset Christian Allies Caucus.

"It is dangerous, incorrect and unhealthy to begin to get into all kinds of unproductive comments against Obama or to preemptively launch an anti-Obama campaign," he added. "I think it's a great mistake to begin to make him into Muhammad or to talk about him being photographed as an Arab. It is incorrect hysteria."

Elon did, however, acknowledge that so far, Republican candidate John McCain's voting record was solidly more "positive."'

Obama and Change in the U.S., from the Jakarta Post

2008-06-08T08:42:00.000-07:00

By M. Taufiqurrahman, an Indonesian grad student who lives in Illinois but writes for his home country's paper --

'In his ode to America, America Is Not the World, British pop singer Morrissey forlornly sung that the U.S. is indeed the land of the free, yet it never has had a president who is female, black or gay. The upcoming presidential election, however, will likely address that lack.

Even if Barack Obama, the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, loses to John McCain in the November election --and the smart money is against that happening -- what has transpired this primary election season has shown how much America has changed.'

The Kenyan Daily Nation on Sen. Obama

2008-06-08T08:33:00.001-07:00

'The best we can expect from Obama,' by Philip Ochieng --

-----

'Exactly what do we mean when we say that Barack Obama has made history? For the professional historian — because he has studied so many cases — the answer is double-edged and scary.

For it is clear that, whatever the history-maker has done, he has done it in opposition to a solid status quo which — precisely because of the breakthrough — is redoubling its effort to roll back the wheels of history.

Barack Obama has done what no other black American has ever done. Yet this is historic merely because, despite amazing futuristic techno-scientific achievements, his country’s mind remains enslaved by the most primitive tribal ideas about colour, gender and religion. '

-----

Also, 'Barack Obama is Africa's Talisman,' by the Nation's editorial board --

-----

Kenyans are celebrating Senator Barack Obama’s success in the US Democratic Party nomination, not because they expect goodies from him if he becomes the most powerful leader in the world; they know there won’t be any.

At one level they are doing so because of a sense of kinship. His father was Kenyan, after all.

But the bigger reason is that he is a role model for almost a billion black people in the world today who are used to coming last in everything important. The black race is the poorest, least powerful, most unhealthy, least hopeful of them all.

-----

Asahi Shimbun, on 'President Obama'

2008-06-08T08:22:00.000-07:00

From the paper's 6 June edition:

'At long last, the race to name the Democratic candidate for U.S. president has been settled with the emergence of Sen. Barack Obama as the first African-American nominee. His candidacy dashes Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's challenge to be the first woman to win the nomination. Obama, who was born to a Kenyan father and a white American mother, will go up against Republican Sen. John McCain in the Nov. 4 presidential election.

The sensation that Obama stirred from the outset of the primaries must have caught many readers by surprise. Can the United States really change that much and overcome racial prejudice against blacks? This is the question that has been on their minds.'

The rest.

Why Hilary Lost, according to Jonathan Schwarz

2008-06-06T15:54:00.001-07:00

From This Modern World, via the New York Times -

-------------

Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins).

The conventional wisdom

2008-06-06T11:22:00.000-07:00

It seems that Sen. Obama has a great deal to gain electorally by adding Sen. Clinton to the ticket (for one thing, her popularity among hispanics increases his chances in Florida by a sizable margin), but a great deal to lose administratively - in that she will be unreliable because she's unlikely to accept 'orders' from him or will pursue her own agenda once they're elected.

It seems to me that Democrats ought to be all for it. They're adults; they can learn to work together. Aside from that, who else is there? The name recognition alone seems as thought it would be a boon; Clinton generates high negatives but probably mostly among Conservatives who have never voted Democratic in their lives. Looking to the future, given the pretty thin margin by which Obama won, for now it also appears to be the best chance of a third democratic term after Obama's two terms.

The other somewhat historic footnote

2008-06-05T22:20:00.000-07:00

It has been exactly a century - 25 elections - since the last time neither major candidate was a state governor, sitting president or vice-president. In 1908 Secretary of War Taft defeated Democratic party luminary (not sure what else to call him, at that point in his career) William Jennings Bryan) by eight percent in the popular vote, or an electoral margin of 321-162. In those days, of course, the Democrats were still the party of the south and the Republicans (especially southerners) were still considered the party of Lincoln.

The Wikipedia article.

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden endorses Sen. Obama

2008-06-05T09:10:00.000-07:00

Otherwise unremarkable in a season of pronouncements of adulation and fealty, but I thought waiting until the final votes were cast was a classy move. To this day I don't understand the great rush to get Sen. Clinton out of the race; I never saw why she shouldn't go to the convention, had neither candidate secured the necessary delegates. If the DNC wants to build in some sort of 'when you're 200 behind we're calling the mercy rule,' that's fine, but until then that's the system - I've always felt playing hard until the final buzzer was a mark in somebody's favor (leaving aside, of course, the wretched campaign she has run).

Getting it done pre-convention is of course extremely advantageous to the Democrats, but if the party big-wigs don't want candidates exercising their right to go to the Convention, they ought to change the rules.

Sen. Obama still has five months to take on Sen. McCain, which is more than enough time for both of them. It's not as if McCain has built up any great lead because he finished his primaries early - the margins are still just about as razor-thin as they were when McCain was still slugging it out with Govs. Romney and Huckabee.

In the immortal words of Hobbes the Tiger...

2008-06-05T00:33:00.001-07:00

...Adjectives fail me.

----------------------

Thousands of Americans are pledging to fire up their charcoal barbecue grills, bask in the infinite glow of numerous incandescent light bulbs, shun recycling of any kind and take spontaneous road trips in gas-guzzling vehicles to increase their personal carbon output – all in protest of the Senate debate over a bill calling for a "cap-and-trade" system.

Grassfire, one of the nation's fastest-growing grassroots organizations, has declared June 12 Carbon Belch Day and is enlisting citizens to expel more than 100 million pounds of CO2 to combat climate alarmist propaganda and to take a stand against a "$1.2 trillion carbon tax."

"We wanted to point out the absurdity of the climate alarmism of Al Gore and others who want to make us feel bad for just about everything we do and rally people for the battle over the carbon tax which is now under way in the Senate," Grassfire president Steve Elliott told WND. "We really plan to engage lots of citizens who have been under carbon-footprint guilt for far too long and give citizens an opportunity to make a statement that we reject climate alarmism. We're not going to stand for this carbon tax."

People are reading this stuff.

2008-06-04T23:13:00.000-07:00

And, what's more, they are taking it seriously --

------------

"WHISTLEBLOWER MAGAZINE Finally revealed: The secret life of Barack Obama
Is he America's political messiah – or a Manchurian candidate?

In a few short months, the young and relatively unknown politician Barack Hussein Obama may very well be elevated to the presidency of the United States and command the mightiest military in world history.

Would the eloquent and charismatic Obama unite, inspire and renew a troubled nation, as tens of millions of voters passionately believe? Or is it possible he's a Manchurian candidate – harboring an ominous secret agenda few understand, a man destined to wreak havoc on America should he become president?

That's the question that is explored definitively in the April issue of WND's acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine, titled "THE SECRET LIFE OF BARACK OBAMA."

[snip]

Examination of his U.S. Senate voting record reveals him to be a hard leftist. A little-reported letter from the candidate to the "LGBT community" declares Obama's enthusiastic solidarity with the radical homosexual-rights agenda. His long-time spiritual mentor and pastor turns out to be a rabid, racist, America-hater who claims the U.S. invented AIDS to wipe out black people. Bloggers are even piecing together an intriguing case that Obama, a Muslim in his youth, may still be a closet Muslim.

-----------

We will all look back in a few years and feel very, very ashamed.

It'd be one thing if this were the tin-foil hat crowd frothing in the corner, but reasonably mainstream 'journalists' on Fox and the radio quote or at least praise World Net Daily somewhat regularly.

This just in: Conservative media believes that liberals suck.

2008-06-04T13:51:00.000-07:00

Listening to a Christian radio station on the way home from school got me to wondering. The host was attacking Sen. Obama for being 'pro-abortion;' he rolled out the usual quotes and attacks for the benefit of his listeners, Obama thinks babies are punishments, blah blah blah.

I have a feeling that the listeners and watchers of Conservative Christian radio stations, Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Fox et al. are people who would never have voted for Obama in the first place. Christianity's a big tent, and it's a safe bet that Christian Democrats/non-Republicans aren't listening to this station's political hour. So one has to wonder exactly what they believe repeating 'Obama sucks' for the next six months is going to accomplish.

Tirofijo se murió.

2008-06-04T12:55:00.000-07:00

The FARC are probably finished. It's about time.

Where the money goes

2008-06-04T12:28:00.000-07:00

To subsidize struggling farmers David Letterman and the owners of the Utah Jazz, of course -

--------------

"Consider their latest masterpiece, the 2007 farm bill that Congress this week delivered, several months late, to George Bush. Congress and the farmers have conspired to make an already unjust agricultural policy—a system that has subsidised the “farming” activities of such paupers as David Letterman and David Rockefeller—even worse. Through a complicated and overlapping system of government-sponsored insurance, counter-cyclical assistance, disaster aid and legacy payments tied to nothing, the five-year, $307 billion bill lavishes cash on wealthy farm households, the main restriction on collecting it being a means test that applies to couples making more than $1.5m a year. And even that can be avoided by employing a reasonably competent accountant.

Shockingly, the bill's authors tied some future subsidy payments to today's record commodity prices, therefore guaranteeing already well-off farmers high incomes. Commercial farm households, which get most of the largesse, will have an average income of $229,920 in 2008, says the Agriculture Department. And it means, as the department points out, that the government could owe billions in subsidy payments to these big farmers if and when prices dip again."

-----------

Sen. Obama voted for this piece of junk. Sen. McCain, to his credit, did not. Also to President Bush's credit, he exercised a little fiscal prudence for once and vetoed the bill, though it was overridden.

Sen. Obama's prophetic 'purple' speech

2008-06-04T12:16:00.000-07:00

There are those who believe that margins of victory in 2008 are going to be a good deal narrower than they were in 2004, whomever turns out victorious. Via The Economist --

--------------

"If he (or, should a miracle occur, Mrs Clinton) stumbles, however, it may be because the electoral college has worked against the Democrats. With five months of campaigning still ahead, all predictions should be taken with a fistful of salt. Nonetheless, it is at least plausible that he (or she) might rack up pointlessly large majorities in liberal states while narrowly failing to carry enough swing states to win.

Geography, as so often in history, is key. The electoral map did not change much between the last two presidential elections. Only three states, all small, switched sides between 2000 and 2004: Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico. But this year could be very different. John McCain is an unusual Republican, distrusted by the party's evangelical base but popular with independents. Mr Obama's prospects are even harder to discern, since no black American has ever come this close to the presidency and people may lie to pollsters about his candidacy."

--------------

Interesting that a British magazine echoes Alterman that the Democrats are geographically handicapped.

Why they hate us, Iran edition

2008-06-04T08:20:00.000-07:00

A young gentleman much more brilliant than I clued me in to this in one of my history classes. This is from 'The Iran Contra Connection,' by Jonathan Marshall, Peter Dale Scott and Jane Hunter -
-------------

"... Israeli interests in non-Arab Iran became prominent as early as the 1 950s, when Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence agency, cooperated with the CIA in establishing the Shah's secret police, SAVAK. A 1979 CIA report on Mossad notes that:

'The main purpose of the Israeli relationship with Iran was the development of a pro-Israel and anti-Arab policy on the part of Iranian officials. Mossad has engaged in joint operations with SAVAK over the years since the late 1950s. Mossad aided SAVAK activities and supported the Kurds in Iraq. The Israelis also regularly transmitted to the Iranians intelligence reports on Egypt's activities in the Arab countries, trends and developments in Iraq, and Communist activities affecting Iran.'"

-----------
The rest of a short excerpt. Evidently when SAVAK was 'extraordinarily rendering' some young Iranian student who'd made nasty comments about the Shah, there was occasionally either a Mossad or CIA guy present. Personally I try not to armchair quarterback the Israeli and American intelligence services, undoubtedly this seemed like a better idea at the time than it does today. But it seems to me that it helps explain their attitudes with something more believable than 'they hate our freedoms.'

"The 'New Media' at work," or "you just can't make this stuff up"

2008-06-03T16:24:00.001-07:00

Sean Hannity just cited gossip websites 'The Drudge Report' and 'TMZ.com' in the space of five minutes, while reporting on one of his favorite topics (perhaps his alltime favorite), the private life of Bill Clinton.

This may come as a surprise...

2008-06-03T10:58:00.001-07:00

Michael Savage on his show yesterday claimed that left-wingers are trying to bring about something in this country that he described as 'fascism, socialism, communism, whatever you want to call it.'

For the benefit of Mr. Savage, (who would no doubt be aghast if he realized he'd made such an egregious factual error) via the Wiktionary --

"1) Noun
fascism
A political regime based on strong centralized government, suppressing through violence any criticism or opposition of the regime, and exalting nation, state, or religion above the individual.

2) Noun
Singular communism
Plural communisms
communism (plural communisms)
Any political philosophy or ideology advocating holding the production of resources collectively.
Any political social system that implements a communist political philosophy.
The international socialist society where classes and the state no longer exist.

3) Noun
Singular socialism
Plural socialism
Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources, as advocated by socialists.
The socialist political philosophies as a group, including Marxism, libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracy.
(Leninism) The intermediate phase of social development between capitalism and full communism. This is a strategy whereby the State has control of all key resource-producing industries and manages most aspects of the market, in contrast to laissez faire capitalism.
(Classical Marxism) The international communist society where classes and the state no longer exist. "

Mr. Savage's current usage appears to signify ' Something Very Bad^10 that I can use to smear liberals.'

Shabby logic

2008-06-02T14:17:00.000-07:00

A caller into Bill O'Reilly's radio show today argued that anyone criticizing The United States (or, more specifically, policies of the government of The United States) ought not do so because, essentially, life was worse in other countries than this one. He said something to the effect of (if I may paraphrase) - 'Anyone who wants to in this country can decide to go get a job and a plate of food' while in other countries 'they have to walk ten miles to get a bucket of water from a mudhole.'

O'Reilly, of course, vociferously agreed. True, life is much better in the United States for the worst-off Americans than the median human in much of the rest of the world. However I don't see how it follows logically that Americans can't try to improve their own country because it's already better than some others. A metaphoric dialogue occurred to me as I listened to O'Reilly extrapolate on how we each 'owed' America something more than tax revenue -

Me: I drive an old Isuzu Rodeo with a broken air conditioner and a barely working radio. Someday soon, though, I'd like to get a hybrid with working AC and CD player-

O'Reilly: Why do you hate Rodeos?

Me: Pardon?

O'Reilly: Your Rodeo gets you to work everyday. It's given you so much. Why wouldn't you just appreciate it? Some people don't even have cars. I know the media is filling your head with anti-Rodeo propaganda everyday and all, but you can see through that, can't you?

Me: I don't hate Rodeos, per se, I just thought it'd be nice to have a car that runs a little smoother and is easier on the environment and my wallet-

O'Reilly: Nobody's fooled by your far-left hate-filled agenda, herr Goebbels.

Speaking to the enemy, or sleazy political gamesmanship

2008-06-02T12:14:00.000-07:00

The Economist, on whether Sen. Obama intends to 'appease' the Iranians:

"In January 1991 in Geneva, for example, America's secretary of state talked face-to-face to Tariq Aziz, a nasty piece of work who was Saddam Hussein's foreign minister and is currently on trial for murder. But nobody has ever been silly enough to accuse James Baker or the president who sent him (one George H. W. Bush) of appeasement. And that is because instead of letting Iraq keep Kuwait, which it had just invaded and annexed, Mr Baker told Mr Aziz that America would throw Iraq out by force if it did not leave. Hardly appeasement."

Later, in the same piece:

"Strange, then, that the very Mr Bush who admonished the appeasers from Israel's parliament has allowed Americans to negotiate with the North for years. If these talks ever make Kim Jong-Il give up his nukes, nobody in his right mind will hold Mr Bush's decision to talk against him. And if it's fine to speak to North Korea, why rule out talking, as Mr Obama says he would, to Iran?"

The cynic in me keeps screaming that cheap political points scored at the expense of skittish American voters may be somehow involved. I can't quite put my finger on how...

An idea whose time has probably come, but is almost certainly not original here

2008-06-01T18:03:00.000-07:00

A history professor of mine recently shared with the class that he believes there ought to a national primary day, where this six-month process would take place in the space of a single day, roughly approximating the conditions of a general election. He thought this would reduce the relevance of Iowa and New Hampshire, which he described as 'America likes a winner.'

He also argued that delegate apportionment - whether proportional to percentage of the popular vote or winner-takes-all - ought to be consistent with the general election.

Another professor of mine made essentially the federalism argument in rebuttal when I brought the question up to him - that local state parties should and do have the wherewithal to decide when primaries are held, relative at least to the RNC and DNC.

I tend to agree with the former. I see more positives than negatives in a national day of primaries.

Florida, Michigan, Obama and November

2008-06-01T07:10:00.000-07:00

I have read and listened to various sources arguing that supporters of Sen. Clinton dissatisfied with the DNC's Florida and Michigan decision could tip those states in favour of Sen. McCain come general election, assuming Clinton has not Boss Tweeded the nomination away from its rightful owner by then. If Clinton supporters might actually jump en masse to McCain out of spite or genuine preference (although it's hard to imagine why a supporter of Clinton would prefer McCain over Sen. Obama, given that Obama's policy ideas are much nearer to Clinton's than McCain's), Obama's supporters could have serious cause for concern.

Florida has voted blue only four times in the past sixty years (excluding 2000), once each for Clinton, Carter, Johnson and Truman. Of Democratic presidents over that period, only Kennedy and Clinton (in his first term) won without Florida. Michigan is a stranger case, having voted Democratic for the past twenty years, Republican for the twenty years before that, and Republican three times, Democratic twice in the twenty year block before that. That adds up to solidly blue demographics in the short term but solidly purple in the post-WWII long term, with Republicans edging the Democrats by an 8-7 margin in the fifteen elections since 1948. McCain's famous appeal to independents may be hard for Obama to counter in a well-balanced state.

More on McClellan

2008-05-31T14:51:00.000-07:00

Having watched most of the former press secretary's interview with Keith Olbermann on 'Youtube,' I find that the man makes a pretty solid case. We ought not believe too fiercely anything that comes from only one source, although the fact that all the usual windbags (Hannity, Ingraham, etc.) have tried to shoot him full of holes is a mark in his favor, in my book.

McClellan

2008-05-31T09:01:00.000-07:00

It seems to me that books written by administration insiders critical of that administration are hailed as a Great Work of Truth by liberals/Democrats if written by conservatives/Republicans, and hailed by conservatives/Republicans as a Great Work of Truth if written by liberals/Democrats.

An insider book critical of a Republican administration will be met with widespread derision in all conservative media, whether the work has any merit or not, and the former loyal soldier will be vilified by the O'Reilly-Limbaugh-Hume axis that used to sing his praises, or at least accord him the respect due to a loyal soldier. I imagine this holds true for Democratic administration insiders as well (Although the Olbermann-Colmes-Franken axis just doesn't seem to have quite the same oomph), though it's been a while since we've had one so it'd be hard to say for sure.

Many (most) of the blowhards passing judgment will not have read the book, and will cheerfully openly admit this fact.

Nuance, addendum

2008-05-30T23:11:00.001-07:00

Disagreeing with actions taken by the Government of Israel does not equal anti-semitism.

Nuance

2008-05-30T22:46:00.000-07:00

Saddam Hussein was not Adolf Hitler. Not even close.

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is not Adolf Hitler. Not even close.

Dopey comments regarding the holocaust do not equal the holocaust.

Anti-Iraq war does not equal pro-Saddam. Pro-Iraq war does not equal war-monger.

Talking to dictators we don't like (that is to say, those who are not already allied to the United States) 'without preconditions' does not equal appeasement. Anyone who speaks out against a war is not Neville Chamberlain.

Moreover, we only use the word 'dictator' when it's a dictator we don't like. One never hears the words 'Saudi Arabian dictator King Abdullah,' nor 'Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf.'

Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad are not dictators. Both men were democratically elected, and both are subject to checks on their powers - Chavez by the legislature and Ahmedinejad by the Mullahs.

A plague of locusts will not terrorize the land if one's preferred presidential candidate is not elected, Republican or Democrat.

The 'War on Terror' is not World War II redux. Sept. 11 was not Pearl Harbor redux. The Iraq War is not Vietnam redux. Each of these events is more dissimilar than alike, although it's debatable how much more similar one set is than the other.

20th century American foreign policy in the middle east was shameful. In light of this, it's obvious that the terrorists do not hate us directly because they are evil or hate our freedoms, or, as President Bush put it, because we have a democratically elected government. However, in part, they do hate some of what a liberalised society allows that they find sinful. Essentially they are the extreme religious right-wing of the Muslim world - getting back to the basics of the faith because they believe that the mainstream of Islam has strayed from the faith of Muhammed.