Bi-Wingal Conspiracy Versus The Clintons

McCain Invites Obama to Visit Iraq

Last Sunday, I wrote about a group of veterans that were criticizing Barack Obama because he had failed to meet one on one with David Petraeus and because Obama had not visited Iraq in two and a half years. John McCain has now taken up this issue as well, at least the latter part. Here is the LA Times headline.

McCain challenges Obama to visit Iraq

Now you can’t always trust an LA Times headline, but this was actually seems to fit the story. McCain has invited Obama to accompany him on a trip to Iraq. Obama reportedly is planning a trip this summer, though not with McCain. Obama’s campaign called such a joint trip a “political stunt.”

Well it would be a political stunt, as well as a security nightmare, but it might have value beyond that. Having the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees touring Iraq together would send a message to world in general and Iraq in particular that the United States is united in support of out troops and committed to ensuring a stable Iraq. Unfortunately, while I am sure Obama supports our troops in a general way, I don’t think he is nearly as committed to a stable Iraq.

Jim Carrey Is The Walrus

YouTube Terrorism?

Senator Joe Lieberman is trying to get Google, the parent company of YouTube, to take down videos he believes were posted by Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda sympathizers. As I understand it, Google has taken down approximately 80 videos identified by Lieberman which the company found violated their community guidelines, but have left up others, including one video which purportedly shows an American soldier being killed by sniper fire. This video shows Senator Lieberman being interviewed by Fox News about the videos.



I agree that the proper adjective to describe the videos is disgusting. I think Senator Lieberman should be applauded bringing the videos to the attention of both Google and the American people. But near the end of the video, Senator Lieberman brings up the possibility of legislation if Google fails to take down the video. Disgusting as those videos may be, and regardless of whether such videos might attract those sympathetic to Islamic terror organizations, I do not believe government censorship is the answer. Ultimately it won’t work, and it doesn’t seem right that the United States should try to join China in censoring the Internet.

Young Hillary Clinton

This is hillarious.

Vice-Presidential Humor

"Of course, a lot of people now are starting to talk about who Barack Obama will choose as his running mate. That's now what everyone's discussing. This is the latest, folks, true story. Time magazine says that former President Bill Clinton is pushing very hard for Barack Obama to choose Hillary as his vice president. Yeah. Yeah, Bill says Hillary would be a great vice president, or a great ambassador to any country that's far, far away." --Conan O'Brien

"I guess McCain is scheduled to meet with three possible vice presidential nominees this weekend at his home. The candidates are very excited to go. They say the only downside -- they hate it when he keeps pushing that bowl of ribbon candy on them." --Jay Leno

"The only other uncomfortable thing about McCain's household is plastic on the furniture." --Jay Leno

"Earlier this week, Vice President Dick Cheney gave the commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy. He was given a 19-gun salute. And two Coast Guard members were slightly injured when Cheney returned fire." --Jay Leno

No Such Thing As Media Bias. Riiiiiight.

As I have written before, I support the legalization of same sex marriage. I just don’t understand how allowing two men or two women to marry would in any way undermine a heterosexual couple’s marriage. My favorite anti-gay marriage argument is that gay men are too promiscuous to be allowed to marry. So the best way to reduce promiscuity is to prevent gay men from entering a legally recognized monogamous relationship?

While I would happily vote for a law to legalize same-sex marriage, I object to judges that feel free to substitute their personal beliefs (even when I share those beliefs) for the law. That is something a majority of the California Supreme Court did recently in overturning California’s recent voter enacted ban on same sex marriage.

Not surprisingly, this decision has led to a backlash as opponents seek to amend the California Constitution to overturn this decision. Here is where that unbiased reporting comes in. The La Times and KTLA polled registered voters in California about support for this Constitutional Amendment. The Times online addition has this headline:

Times Poll: Californians narrowly reject gay marriage

The picture at right is from the print edition. Reading the article, it is not until the sixth paragraph that the Times gives the actual poll numbers. It seems California registered voters support the Constitutional Amendment by a mere 19% (54-35%). That’s a “narrow” and “slim” 19%. In most elections 19% is a landslide, but that must only be when the 19% is “wide” and “chubby.”

If the LA Times wants to argue on its editorial page that voters should reject the amendment they have every right, in fact I encourage them to do so. But misrepresenting polling results in the way they did is not journalism. It makes me wonder how the Times framed the polling questions in the first place. It might well be support for the amendment is actually higher.

But at least there is no liberal bias in the media.

Try And Watch This Without Getting Misty Eyed

Obama Will Meet With Foreign Dictators But Not Vets Or Their Commander

Barack Obama has said that he will meet, without preconditions, with leaders like Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, and North Korea’s Kim Jong Il. Charles Krauthammer most recent column is one of the most compelling and well reasoned criticisms of this policy I have read. Like the Michelle Malkin column I discussed the other day, Krauthammer talks about Obama’s gaffes, arguing that one gaffe was so bad he was stuck with it and actually turned into a policy.

Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure -- then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."

After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.

Should the president ever meet with enemies? Sometimes, but only after minimal American objectives -- i.e. preconditions -- have been met. The Shanghai communique was largely written long before Richard Nixon ever touched down in China. Yet Obama thinks Nixon to China confirms the wisdom of his willingness to undertake a worldwide freshman-year tyrants tour.

Most of the time you don't negotiate with enemy leaders because there is nothing to negotiate. Does Obama imagine that North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela are insufficiently informed about American requirements for improved relations?

But what is the problem with talking?

A meeting with Ahmadinejad would not just strengthen and vindicate him at home, it would instantly and powerfully ease the mullahs' isolation, inviting other world leaders to follow. And with that would come a flood of commercial contracts, oil deals, diplomatic agreements -- undermining precisely the very sanctions and isolation that Obama says he would employ against Iran.

As every seasoned diplomat knows, the danger of a summit is that it creates enormous pressure for results. And results require mutual concessions. That is why conditions and concessions are worked out in advance, not on the scene.

What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?

Chalk it up to inexperience, naiveté, or political calculation, but Obama’s policy is a mistake. But how do you explain Obama’s failure thus far to meet one on one with General David Petraeus? Also, Obama hasn’t been to Iraq to see things for himself in more than two years. On April 8, a group of more than a dozen Illinois veterans went to Obama’s office and requested a meeting. Though Obama was in the office he refused to meet with these veterans who had not only served their country in Iraq, but who were his constituents.

Vets For Freedom produced this ad.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Yesterday, I went to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I thoroughly enjoyed it and would recommend it though I think it wasn’t quite as good as the earlier films.

This film was certainly much much better than the Star Wars sequels (well technically prequels). I think the credit for that goes largely to Steven Spielberg. I read that Spielberg insisted on using stuntmen instead of CGI, and CGI effects were used only when absolutely necessary. I think the film is much better off for it.

For the most part I enjoyed the Star Wars prequels. I think each of them improved on the previous one, not coincidently because each successive film had less Jar Jar Binks. But none approached the quality of the original trilogy. I think they suffered in part because of George Lucas’s fascination with digital effects and the emphasis of those effects over the story. While I originally thought the idea of revisiting the original trilogy and improving the special effects was a good one, watching those films now many of those new effects seem superfluous and distracting.

But the Indiana Jones film does not suffer from these problems at all. It is a very good film in it’s own right. Also, Indiana Jones is now clearly a Republican. When asked for his last words by the villain, he replies “I like Ike.”

That’s something else I liked about the movie. While filmed in brilliant color, it was one of the more black and white films of recent memory. Aside from a nod to McCarthyism, the Americans were clearly the good guys and the Soviets were clearly the bad guys. Not that every film has to be like that, but it would be nice to see Hollywood produce a few more patriotic action films. I think they would do well at the box office.

In the meantime here are two interesting articles I found about Indiana Jones I would recommend.

10 Awesome Indiana Jones Facts

Indiana Jones 10 Finest Moments

Who Is Battlestar Galactica's Final Cylon?

As I have discussed before, I am a big fan of the SciFi Channel’s Battlestar Galactica. The show details the trials and tribulations of the last of humanity fleeing genocide perpetrated by a race of self aware machines, 12 of which look human. 11 of the human models are known (at least to viewers), the 12th has yet to be revealed. Now a Costa Rica-based betting site BetCRIS.com recently placed odds and is accepting bets as to the identity of the final Cylon. Read more about it here.

Here are the posted odds
· Aaron Kelly: 5-4
· Diana "Hardball" Seelix: 33-20
· Tom Zarek: 23-20
· Anastasia Dualla: 4-5
· Felix Gaeta: 3-2
· Brendan "Hot Dog" Costanza: 2-1
· Margaret "Racetrack" Edmondson: 9-4
· The field (any other character): 2-7

When Bodybuilding and Steroids Go Too Far

The blog Life in the Fast Lane has an interesting (and somewhat grotesque) article entitled When Bodybuilding and Steroids Go Too Far. The article discusses the dangers of steroids and includes photographs of bodybuilders (both male and female) that have simply gone too far. The picture at the left is just one example.

How Could Anyone Think Of Voting For Hillary?

I know as a loyal Republican I should want Hillary Clinton to stay in this race as long as possible, but I honestly don’t know how anyone could still be supporting her.

In case you haven’t heard, earlier today while speaking to the editorial board of Argus Leader Hillary Clinton in part justified staying in the race because “[w]e all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.” Read all about it here.

Everyone makes mistakes, saying something that we later realized came out the wrong way. But Hillary Clinton must have walked into that editorial board meeting prepped with all kinds of talking points. Are we supposed to believe her campaign didn’t expect to be asked, with Obama’s victory all but certain, why she was still in the race? So her statement was almost certainly a planned response. How stupid are her advisors?

For better or worse, Hillary Clinton’s message has been that she is more electable than Barack Obama. More subtly her message is that a lot of working class white democrats will not vote for a black man. To argue that she should stay in the race just in case Obama is assassinated is at best colossally stupid and at worse a suggestion.

I really don’t envy my former colleagues at the Huffington Post. Last week, when it was suggested Obama should choose Hillary as his running mate, I had to delete hundreds of comments along the lines of “if he does that, he better hire a food taster.” Maybe they were right.

Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of herself. Watch the video below.

Best One Liner Ever

Anyone Want To Buy A Jet Bike?

Anybody want a jet powered bicycle? You can put in a bid on eBay if you like (current bid $900.). Wired has a profile of creator Bob Maddox. Maddox, a sky diver, first decided to strap a pulse jet engine to his back to become a human missile, and then thought it might be safe to put the jet engine on a bicycle. You can watch video of Maddox riding his jet bike here. (Sorry it wouldn’t let me embed). With the price of gas as it is, I wonder about the mileage, though according to the article "It'll run on propane, gas, kerosene, absolutely anything except cryogenic fuel," he says. "They'd run on peanut oil if you want." What I bet you can’t do however, is register it with the DMV.

My Next TV (I Wish)

My brother is in the market for an HDTV and I am going to reccommend he get this one. Then I am moving in with him. Unfortunately. Samsung's new Quad HDTV which features 4X the resolution of a standard HDTV (3820x2160 pixels) is not yet for sale. If it was on sale it would most likely cost well over $40,000. So if I win the lottery maybe I will buy my brother one for his birthday. The good news is that Sang Soo Kim, executive vice president of the LCD Technology Center at Samsung Electronics, called it the “optimal display for future TVs.” Read more about it here.

Hillary's New Plan

"But don't discount this Hillary, because she's nothing if not shrewd. Now she has another back-up plan to get to the White House. She's going to marry John McCain." --David Letterman

"And I tell you, Hillary knows how to appeal to those voters. Like, she promised the people of Kentucky, if elected president, she would lower the price of pay-per-view wrestling fifty percent." --Jay Leno

"On Sunday, Hillary Clinton attended a church service at a church, a Methodist church in Bowling Green. She just went to the church there. It just so happens the minister gave a 60-minute sermon on adultery. Yeah, she had to sit through a 60-minute sermon. And here's the really embarrassing part. Right after the minister finished, Bill stood up and gave a 20-minute rebuttal" --Jay Leno

"Hillary Clinton is expected to win in Kentucky. Barack Obama is expected to win in Oregon. And John McCain is expected to win at bingo. So everybody wins." --Conan O'Brien

Obama: Perpetual Gaffe Machine?

Michelle Malkin’s column today is called Barack Gaffes; The Obama machine. Michelle premise is that while one gaffe will taint a Republican for life (as examples she gives Dan Quayle’s potato and the elder George Bush’s encounter with a supermarket scanner), Barack Obama (who she calls a “perpetual gaffe machine”) gets a free ride from the media.3

Here are some of the gaffes she notes.

Last May, he claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us” — cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm — and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”

There are more in her column.

I don’t think there is a media conspiracy to cover up Obama’s gaffes and promote those of Republicans. But I do think stories that support the conventional wisdom about a politician or party get more coverage. Even before Quayle thought potato should be spelled with an “e” at the end, he was seen as someone chosen to be VP because of his good looks not his intelligence. It was easy to look at Bush, who had a definite patrician bearing and who after serving as vice-president for 8 years before becoming president, as being out of touch with the common man. It was pretty likely that he hadn’t done his own grocery shopping since some time in the 1970’s. So Bush being unfamiliar with supermarket scanners re-enforced this pre-existing view.

Barack Obama on the other hand is without question a brilliant man. After all, he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard law School and was President of the law Review. The conventional wisdom about Obama is that he is an elitist. Gaffes for which George W. Bush would be excoriated are not given the same attention when made by Obama.

Obama's Rally

"It was quite a weekend, politically. Yesterday, an estimated 75,000 people attended a Barack Obama rally on the banks of the the Willamette River. ... And if you believe the media, listen to this. After the rally, Barack Obama fed them all with just five loaves of bread and two fish. Amazing!" --Jay Leno

"Earlier today, Barack Obama gave a speech in South Dakota. At the end of the speech, the crowd gave him a standing ovation. Yeah, very cool. Obama got the standing ovation not for his speech, but for being the first black person in South Dakota." --Conan O'Brien.

"Well, New York Daily News says that Barack Obama's biggest problem now is how to get rid of Hillary Clinton gently. To which Bill Clinton said, 'Hey, good luck with that! Tell me how that's going.'"

"The oldest serving member of Congress, former Klan member, Senator Robert Byrd, has endorsed Barack Obama for president. That's got to make Hillary feel good, huh? Even the Klan guy is going, 'I'm gonna go with the black guy.'" --Jay Leno

Obama: Iran Is Not A Threat

In the following video, Barack Obama says “[s]trong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries.” Fair enough. But then he goes on to say that countries like Iran, because they are small and spend less on their militaries than we do, are not a threat.

As Jennifer Rubin writes for Commentary:

Obama apparently believes that Iran and other rogues states (he lists Iran, Cuba and Venezuela) “don’t pose a serious threat to the U.S.” Iran, specifically, he tells us spends so little on defense relative to us that if Iran “tried to pose a serious threat to us they wouldn’t . . . they wouldn’t stand a chance.”

So, taken literally, he seems not much concerned about Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, its sponsorship of terrorist organizations, its commitment to eradicate Israel, its current actions in supplying weapons that have killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq, and its role in eroding Lebanon’s sovereignty through its client Hezbollah.

And then there is is unbridled faith in diplomacy, unaffected by the lessons of history. Was it presidential visits with the Soviet Union that brought down the Berlin Wall? Or was it the 40 year history of bipartisan military deterrence, the willingness of Ronald Reagan to walk away from Reykjavik summit, the resulting bankruptcy of the Soviet Empire, the support of dissidents and freedom fighters in the war against tyranny, and the willingness to identify Communism as a center of evil in the late 20th century?

You can understand why every attempt by John McCain to discuss global threats is labeled “fear-mongering” by Obama. In his world this is all a fantasy and we are not at risk. All perfectly logical . . . if you divorce yourself from reality.

Here is the video.




Of course Obama's speech may cause other problems as well.

Obama’s “Size Matters” Foreign Policy Creates Jitters In Antarctica

Ok, that's a parody. Too bad Obama's speech wasn't.

The Problem With Boston Legal

I kind of have this love hate thing with David Kelly legal dramas such as Boston Legal. I find them very entertaining, but annoying and frustrating at the same time. As a lawyer, I suppose it’s hard to have that willing suspension of disbelief when so many things that happen are unrealistic or just flat out wrong. Of course I am sure that’s true for police officer’s with cop shows, theoretical physicists with science fiction and mathematicians with Numb3rs.

Some of the issues I have are true of almost all legal dramas. For instance, cases do not walk into law offices in the morning and go to trial in the afternoon. In real life, criminal cases take months and civil cases take years to go to trial. The only show that got this mostly right was a show called Murder One which took an entire season to deal with a single high profile criminal case. Still, I understand cases must be time condensed for dramatic purposes. But David Kelly, who is himself a lawyer, will do things in his show that clearly violate legal rules. For instance, on The Practice, they decided to make the receptionist a partner in the firm. When told she was being made a partner, Lisa Gay Hamilton’s character noted that legally only attorneys can be partners in a law firm. Then the issue was ignored.

Boston Legal is one of the worst examples. On last week’s show, a woman that wanted to become a Catholic priest sued the Church for sexual discrimination. While the First Amendment came up in conversation, the fact that Supreme Court precedent is clear that neither the government nor a court may enquire into the reasonableness of a religious belief was not addressed. The plaintiff, in a state court, sought to strip the Church’s tax exempt status, though a state court would have no jurisdiction over federal tax law. In an earlier episode, they got a state court injunction to stop a nuclear power plant from being built, though again a state court would have no jurisdiction. The other case last week involved an argument that the law against prostitution is unconstitutional. The argument boiled down to its still going to happen, why not regulate and tax it, after all we need money for the war. Support our troops, legalize prostitution!!!

I understand that it’s only a TV show. But I think shows like this have a negative effect on the audience. In many of these cases, the lawyers do not make legal arguments at all. Rather they make impassioned arguments that we should have a different public policy. I often agree with the arguments. I think prostitution should be legal. While the Catholic Church is free to have whatever rules it wants, I think that it would be well served by opening the priesthood to women. My problem isn’t with the arguments they make. The problem is that by making these types of arguments to a judge week after week. It reinforces the idea in the public consciousness that it is appropriate for a judge to substitute their judgment for that of the people as a whole. It is the proper role of a judge to interpret and follow the law, not to make up the law to suit their personal preferences.

There are plenty of laws I disagree with, but my disagreement does not make those laws unconstitutional. So I get frustrated watching. But I watch because Denny Crane and Alan Shore are funny.

John McCain on SNL Weekend Update

Obama In The Spotlight

"Barack Obama is in the spotlight, and he is dealing with a little, well, a small controversy. Not a big controversy, but a small controversy. This is the latest. Last night, Barack Obama had to apologize for calling a reporter 'sweetie.' Yeah, meanwhile, Bill Clinton apologized for calling a reporter when her husband was home." --Conan O'Brien

"Hillary Clinton, I mean, God bless her, and it looks like now there is no possible way she can win the nomination, so she's not dropping out. ... Her campaign is 21 million dollars in debt. $21 million in debt. So her campaign is the world's most expensive fantasy camp. ... She is counting on her stimulus check to keep her going." --David Letterman

Trailer for Dollhouse

This is a trailer for a new series by Joss Whedon the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly, starring Elisza Dushku. Fox has picked it up to be a midseason replacement.

Hey Jude

Beatles The Next Generation

Lazy Sunday

I just saw Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian and I thought it was very good. So here courtesy of SNL is lazy Sunday.

Sympathy For The Devil

Or as the liberals call him, Karl Rove.

California and Same Sex Marriage

Ellen DeGeneres and her partner Portia de Rossi have announced that they are going to be married. They have this opportunity thanks to the California Supreme Court’s In Re Marriage Cases decision which found that California’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the California Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

Let me first congratulate Ellen and Portia on their upcoming wedding and wish them a long and happy marriage. That said, I strongly disagree with the California Supreme Court, even though as a political matter I am in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.

One of the greatest responsibilities of our courts is to protect individual liberties from the tyranny of the majority. But those rights must first be protected by the constitution (or other higher law). The 4-judge majority in this case found a basic civil right to same-sex marriage simply because they wanted to find it, not because that right was present in the text or envisioned by those that wrote and/or ratified it.

In this case, the court ruled that California’s Equal Protection Clause requires “Strict Scrutiny” when dealing with discrimination based on sexual orientation. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first classification other than race or national origin to warrant strict scrutiny (though it is also used when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed). Gender discrimination only warrants “intermediate scrutiny.” Most everything else is subject to a rational basis test.

Other courts have construed equal protection clauses to require a rational basis for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That means that in order for the law to be found constitutional, the government has to offer up a legal (as in not illegal) reason for the discrimination that a reasonable person might feel justified the law. Personally, I don’t find any of the reasons offered as justifications for the law to be persuasive. I really don’t see how allowing same-sex unions is going to undermine the marriages of heterosexuals. But that is not the standard. The question is whether no reasonable person could believe it.

In footnote 52 of the majority opinion is this quote. “[O]ur nation’s culture has considered [those types of relationships] inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry.” In this quote, the court is explaining why the new right does not extend to polygamy or adult incest. But that quote would be equally true if it was talking about same-sex marriage. Leave incest out of it because I think there are other reasons besides tradition to bar incest, adult or otherwise. But here’s the thing. I can’t think of a single justification for banning polygamy that couldn’t also be applied to justify a ban on same-sex marriage. If these 4 judges were intellectually honest they would admit as much.

I don’t mean to pick on polygamy. So long as everyone involved is an adult I have no problem with it. Big Love is one of my favorite shows. I am simply trying to point out how this decision is rooted in the values of those judges and not in the constitution itself.

Again I approve of the result, if not the method. I think that the gay rights movement should focus on getting the same rights as married couples through civil union laws (which they already had in California) and worry about calling it marriage down the road when it won’t freak out quite so many people. Doing it through the courts instead of the ballot or the legislature has led to a backlash with many states passing constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

But that backlash has a silver lining (at least for Republicans). This will help John McCain, especially if there is a constitutional amendment to overturn this decision on the November ballot. If this measure brings out social conservatives who might not otherwise be inclined to vote it is possible (but still not likely) that California could be in play in November. Obama could not win if he lost California. Obama by the way is officially opposed to same-sex marriage, favoring instead civil unions. But I bet he comes out against a constitutional amendment enshrining his position.

Damn, who ever would have thought I would be to the left of Barack Obama?

The Democrat Rules

"Howard Dean is on the show tonight. Anybody here from Florida or Michigan? All right. You can't be seated. You'll have to leave." --Jay Leno

"Although, Hillary Clinton was quick to point out Dennis Kucinich still has not endorsed anyone yet. Still on the fence there. I don't want to say Hillary is doing badly in the delegate count, but her numbers are so low, her Secret Service code name is now NBC." --Jay Leno

"Senator John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama for president of the United States. Wow! Wow. With that endorsement, I believe the Obama camp has won the support of its first white male." --Stephen Colbert

"Hillary Clinton won the West Virginia primary with nearly 70% of the vote. That's a lot. Hillary would've gotten even more votes from the West Virginians, but on the way to the polls, some of their houses got a flat tire." --Conan O'Brien

"You can tell Hillary was kind of pandering to voters in West Virginia. Like today, she promised if elected, she would impose a heavy tax on anybody with teeth." --Jay Leno

The Campaigns the Candidates Wish They Could Run

Cracked.com has a piece called The Campaigns the Candidates Wish They Could Run. It was basically a contest to create/Photoshop the funniest fake campaign ad. Here are three of my favorites.

A Remake of Chico & the Man?

"Have you heard about this? This is kind of an interesting idea. In a move they say could revolutionize politics, John McCain and Barack Obama said they might campaign together, go out together. Yeah, they're going to bill themselves as 'Ebony and History.' No, but they would go out and they would debate each other on the road. You got the older, grumpy white guy, and you got the young, smooth-talking black guy. Doesn't that sound like the premise for the worst sitcom of all time? Coming to NBC, it's 'Grandpa and the Brother!'" --Jay Leno

"How about this economy, ladies and gentlemen? Doesn't it stink? And we're really starting to notice it, because in the beginning it was sort of like, okay, a little bit here. But we are really starting to notice the effects of a sour economy in this country. Over at St. Patrick's Cathedral, they're watering down the holy water. Honest to God. That's right. It's only 60% holy now." --David Letterman

"Here's the thing that troubles me. I mean, win, lose or draw, at the end of the day, the bottom line, cut to the chase, it's a lot of money. It's a lot of money to elect a president, don't you think? Really it's an awful lot of money. Hillary Clinton's campaign right now, this very minute, is $20 million in debt. Now, when she gets that 3 a.m. call, it's from a collection agency." --David Letterman

"I don't know if Barack Obama's getting tired or what, but in a recent speech, Barack Obama made a mistake. He said he had visited all 57 states. Yeah, that's what he said. Yeah, after hearing this, President Bush said, 'Haha, he forgot Alaska and Hawaii!'" --Conan O'Brien

"Hillary Clinton, big blowout in West Virginia's primary tonight. Yeah, she's the big winner in West Virginia. Which means that one day, she could be president of West Virginia." -Jay Leno

Stay Cool On Global Warming

Bjørn Lomborg is a Danish statistician and author of the book Cool It!: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming. He believes that global warming is real but that the rhetoric of climate change is overwrought and the policies advanced to combat it are ineffective and counterproductive. Lomborg’s book takes a cold, hard look at the empirical facts, and weighs the costs and benefits of global warming and the policy solutions advanced to restrain it. He recently gave an interview to NRO’s Kathryn Jean Lopez. The article is entitled Don’t Freak Out: Bjørn Lomborg speaks climate sense to nonsense.

Lomborg was asked about John McCain’s recent speech on climate change.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: What did you think of John McCain’s speech on climate change Monday?

Bjørn Lomborg: McCain strikes some of the right notes — he says he recognizes the need for clean, affordable alternatives to fossil fuels; he acknowledges that climate change is real (although there are very few leaders these days who don’t) and he says that we need to deal with the central facts.

But then he doesn’t stay focused on the central facts himself, and ends up reaching some conclusions that are not so sound: he pushes for a cap-and-trade scheme which will do very little good while imposing very high costs. In his speech notes, McCain planned to call for punitive tariffs on China and India, but he omitted that from his delivered speech: hopefully because he realized that protectionism for green reasons can be just as harmful as protectionism for plain old economic reasons.

Lopez: What’s the most disappointing part of his approach?

Lomborg: Instead of looking at the best answers to this problem, McCain is embracing those that are talked about the most.

Lopez than asks about the central idea of a cap-and-trade system.

Lopez: His “free-market” talk is good stuff though, isn’t it? I know I like free markets.

Lomborg: To some, a cap-and-trade system might sound like a neat approach where the market sorts everything out. But in fact, in some ways it is worse than a tax. With a tax, the costs are obvious. With a cap-and-trade system, the costs are hidden and shifted around. For that reason, many politicians tend to like it. But that is dangerous. It’s misleading not to recognize that the costs of cap-and-trade — financially and in terms of jobs, household consumption, and growth — will be significant. Some big businesses in privileged positions could make a fortune from exploiting this rather rigged market — but their gain is no reason to support the system.

For more criticism of a cap-and-trade system read Just Say No to Climate-Tax Hikes by Phil Kerpen. But in the meantime back to Lomborg.

Lopez: Is there anything worthwhile about Kyoto?

Lomborg: Kyoto burned a lot of political capital to create a response to climate change that costs a fortune but achieves very little.

The climate models show that the Kyoto protocol would have postponed the effects of global warming by seven days by the end of the century. Even if the U.S. and Australia had signed on and everyone stuck to Kyoto for this entire century, we would postpone the effects of global warming by only five years — at a cost of $180 billion each year.

Lopez: What could the planet do instead of Kyoto?

Lomborg: We need to make carbon-emissions cuts much easier. The typical cost of cutting a ton of CO2 is about $20 right now — but we know that the damage from a ton of carbon in the atmosphere is about $2. We need to reduce the cost of cutting emissions from $20 to somewhere nearer $2.

We can achieve this by spending dramatically more researching and developing low-carbon energy. Ideally, every nation should commit to spending 0.05 percent of its gross domestic production exploring non-carbon-emitting energy technologies — be they wind, wave, or solar power — or capturing CO2 emissions from power plants. This spending could add up to about $25 billion a year, but it would still be seven times cheaper than the Kyoto protocol, yet increase global research and development tenfold. All nations would be involved, but the richer ones would pay the larger share.

Today, solar panels are ten times more inefficient than the cheapest fossil fuels. Only the very wealthy can afford them. Many “green” approaches, right now, do little more than make rich people feel like they are helping the planet.

We can’t solve climate change by just forcing more inefficient solar panels onto people’s rooftops. The solution is to dramatically increase R&D so that solar panels become cheaper than fossil fuels sooner. Imagine if solar panels became cheaper than fossil fuels by 2050 — we would have solved global warming then, because switching to the environmentally friendly option wouldn’t be the preserve of rich Westerners.

Here is the problem with Lomborg’s approach. The message of climate change alarmists such as Al Gore has been so ingrained in the public consciousness that to argue against the alarm is to be seen as unintelligent, eccentric, or lying for some nefarious purpose (such as being in thrall to “Big Oil”). I disagree with John McCain on a great many issues, climate change included. I am not sure if his position is what he truly believes or is simply one taken because he can’t afford NOT to have a plan to combat climate change.

Too often public fear leads politicians to do something about a problem in the short-term that makes it worse in the long-term. Expensive measures might make us feel better about ourselves, but they will do little to help. They will, however, hurt our economy, make us less wealthy in the future and thus less able to afford things that WILL help.

Ronald Reagan on "I've Got a Secret" (1955)

This video is from a special on gameshows hosted by Wiliam Shatner. Gary Moore is on to remember I've Got A Secret. Starting at the 4:56 mark, they show clips of Ronald Reagan. Reagan's secret was that whenever a panelist said "umm" he would get up, walk off, and then they would start over. The idea was to show the difference between working in the movies with retakes and live television.

Historic ‘Blockbuster’ Store Offers Glimpse Of How Movies Were Rented In The Past

Historic 2018Blockbuster2019 Store Offers Glimpse Of How Movies Were Rented In The Past

Spiderman, Iron Man, & The Hulk

Again, Bush Didn't Lie

Undoubtedly one of the reasons for President Bush’s low approval rating is the often repeated charge that “Bush lied and people died.” As I have written before, while mistakes were certainly made, I do not believe Bush lied.

On NRO this morning, Michael Barone looks at a new book by Douglas Feith, the No. 3 civilian at the Pentagon from 2001 to 2005. It is entitled War and Decision. Barone writes:

The picture Feith paints is at considerable variance from the narratives with which we’ve become familiar.

One such narrative is, “Bush lied; people died.” The claim is that “neocons,” including Feith, politicized intelligence to show that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction. Not so, as the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Silberman-Robb Commission have concluded already. Every intelligence agency believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and the post-invasion Duelfer report concluded that he maintained the capability to produce them on short notice. There was abundant evidence of contacts between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Given Saddam’s hostility to the United States and his stonewalling of the United Nations, American leaders had every reason to believe he posed a grave threat. Removing him removed that threat.

The bipartisan Silberman-Robb Commission while finding he Intelligence Community was "dead wrong" in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction did not find even a single case of improper pressure on intelligence analysts to change or "cook" intelligence in order to support political positions.

Barone relates the following criticism of Bush.

Unfortunately — and here Feith is critical of his ultimate boss, George W. Bush — the administration allowed its critics to frame the issue around the fact that stockpiles of weapons weren’t found. Here we see at work the liberal fallacy, apparent in debates on gun control, that weapons are the problem rather than the people with the capability and will to use them to kill others. The fact that millions of law-abiding Americans have guns is not a problem; the problem is that criminals can get them and have the will to kill others. Similarly, the fact that France has WMDs is not a problem; the fact that Saddam Hussein had the capability to produce WMDs and the will to use them against us was.

Not even I will believe that Bush’s only mistake on Iraq was issue framing. But I do agree that even if Saddam had no WMD stockpiles, we are safer with him gone.

Bush Reaches Out To Gay Community

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Meet Cindy McCain

Katherine Jean Lopez on NRO has an interview with potential First Lady Cindy McCain. In the interview she talks about what its like to be the mother of two sons in the military, her daughter’s Meghan campaign blog, and the unexpected adoption of her daughter Bridget from Mother Theresa’s Calcutta orphanage.

You know, she chose me, I’m convinced. She was only ten weeks old but she captured my heart. As you know, she had a very severe cleft palate and she had a number of other little problems along with another little baby. hen I realized, when the nuns prevailed upon me and said: You know these babies need help you could help them, all of a sudden a light bulb kind of went off in my head and it
was like: “Yeah you know I can help them.” I’m in a situation where I can get some help for these kids. It was just a matter of really responding to the call and then of course realizing on the flight home that I just couldn’t give her up. I didn’t go there with any intention of adopting or adding to our family in any way, and as luck and God would have it she is our lovely daughter to this day. And even though it was a surprise to my husband, he loves her just the way I do, and she adds such a special dimension to our family.

Read the entire interview here.

James Mullaney on The New Destroyer: Dead Reckoning

I have been reading the Destroyer Series since I was a kid. The series which was created by Warren Murphy and Dick Sapir in the 1960's follows the adventures of Remo Williams an assassin working for a super secret government agency known as C.U.R.E . I can understand how that synopsis might not seem attractive to a lot of people, but what I truly love about them is how satirical the books are. The best of them are truly funny. Sometimes the books are truly inspired as when a retiring president and first lady steal white house furniture on the way out of the White House (a story written, incidentally, months before Bill and Hillary actually did that).

The books have had various ghost writers over the years and at times certain writers have written some pretty bad books. One of the best ghost writers was Jim Mullaney. He stopped writing the books because the then publisher refused to pay him what he was worth, but Warren Murphy has changed publishers and teamed up with Mullaney to write the New Destroyer series in a return to the old style. Here then is a Jim Mullaney audio interview with NR’s John J. Miller.

James Mullaney on The New Destroyer: Dead Reckoning

Congratulations Jenna Bush and Henry Hager

From all reports the wedding was a beautiful affair. It’s a shame that some people decided to use the wedding as an occasion to bash President Bush. I on the other hand think Bush deserves credit for how the wedding was handled. Jenna’s wedding, while not exactly a secret, was an intensely private affair. Tricia Nixon’s Rose Garden wedding, was in contrast televised live.

Had they wanted it, Jenna’s wedding would have received tremendous positive publicity, not just this weekend, but over the past few weeks and months as the wedding was planned. President Bush currently has one of the lowest approval ratings in history. There is no question that positive wedding publicity would have rubbed off on Bush’s approval rating. But it was more important to President Bush to respect Jenna’s privacy. I think that says things about his character, no matter what some on the left might think and say.

Apes That Write, Start Fires And Play Pacman

This is a fascinating video about the Bonobo, sometimes called Pygmy Chimpanzees. They may be the species closest to humans in terms of their intelligence, use of tools and sexuality.

Hillary Is A Sore Loser

135 Films of the 1970's in About 10 Minutes

I think at least one of these movies was from 1969. Can anyone name it? Here's a hint: think Borat.

Some Serious Analysis of Hillary's Chances

This morning, Charles Krauthammer has an insightful analysis of where Hillary’s campaign strategy went wrong and how she finally got it right, unfortunately for her too late.

By the time Hillary Clinton figured out how to beat Barack Obama, it was too late. When she began the race in 2007 thinking she was in for a coronation, she claimed the center in order to position herself for the real fight, the general election. She simply assumed the party activists and loony Left would fall in behind her.However, as Obama began to rise, powered by the party’s Net-roots activists, she scurried left, particularly with her progressively more explicit renunciation of the Iraq War. It was a fool’s errand. She would never be able to erase the stain of her original war vote and she remained unwilling to do an abject John Edwards self-flagellating recantation. It took her weeks even to approximate the apology the Left was looking for, and by then it was far too late. The party’s activist wing was by then unbreakably betrothed to Obama.

But going left proved disastrous for Clinton. It abolished all significant policy differences between her and Obama, the National Journal’s 2007 most liberal senator. On health care, for example, her attempts to turn a minor difference in the definition of universality into a major assault on Obama fell flat. With no important policy differences separating them, the contest became one of character and personality. Matched against this elegant, intellectually nimble, hugely talented newcomer, she had no chance of winning that contest.

Where Hillary got it right:

It wasn’t until late in the fourth quarter that she figured out the seam in Obama’s defense. In fact, Obama handed her the playbook with Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Michelle Obama’s comments about never having been proud of America, and Obama’s own guns-and-God condescension toward small-town whites.

The line of attack is clear: not that Obama is himself radical or unpatriotic, just that, as a man of the academic Left, he is so out of touch with everyday America that he could move so easily and untroubled in such extreme company and among such alien and elitist sentiments.

Clinton finally understood the way to run against Obama: back to the center — not ideologically but culturally, not on policy but on attitude. She changed none of her positions on Iraq or Iran or health care or taxes. Instead, she transformed herself into working-class Sally-get-her-gun, off duck hunting with dad.

According to Krauthammer the only thing left is for Hillary to negotiate the terms of her surrender. But Jay Cost of Real Clear Politics disagrees. He says Not Quite Yet.

Elite opinion on the Democratic race has congealed around the idea that it is over. Clinton has no chance whatsoever to win the nomination now. There is a minority of analysts out there - maybe 5%, maybe even less - who see her path to the nomination as much narrower than it was four days ago, but who still see a path.

I'm with the minority on this one. I think she is nearly finished, but not quite yet.

According to Cost her path runs through Appalachia.

[I]t is possible that she could counter Tuesday's blowout with two big blowouts of her own in the next two weeks. This could undo most of the damage done by her big loss in North Carolina, and put her back on track.

West Virginia is 95% white, and one of the poorest states in the nation. Demographically, Pennsylvania's twelfth congressional district is a decent proxy of it. Clinton won Pennsylvania's twelfth by 46 points. A recent Rasmussen survey put her up 29 points in the Mountaineer State, with 17% undecided. Another poll had her up 40 points, with Obama under 25%.

Kentucky is not as poor or as white as West Virginia, but it is nearly so. Demographically, Kentucky falls somewhere between Ohio's sixth congressional district, which went for Clinton by 45 points, and the seventeenth, which went for her by 28 points. A recent Survey USA poll of the Bluegrass State had her up 34 points - with a staggering 72 point lead in the east, where Obama was winning less than 20% of the vote. Rasmussen recently had her up 25 points with 13% undecided.

Cost believes blow out victories in WV and KY could put her within striking distance of the popular vote lead (allowing her to argue to the super delegates that they should vote for her). In this analysis, Puerto Rico becomes the primary that could put Hillary over the top in the popular vote.

Is Hillary Finished?

Very tough night for Hillary Clinton, as you're aware. Hillary Clinton says she isn't dropping out, 'cause there are still six states that haven't had their Democratic primary. That's right. Barack Obama's favored in the states of Oregon, Montana and South Dakota, and Hillary is favored in the state of denial." --Conan O'Brien

"Yeah, not looking good for Hillary. Today, even Yogi Berra said, 'It's over.'" --Jay Leno

"Well, you know what's interesting. The experts say, if you do the math, there's no way Hillary Clinton can win the nomination. And today, Hillary responded by saying, 'People who do math are elitist.'" --Jay Leno

"And you can tell Barack Obama is feeling confident. Did you see what he did this afternoon? He went bowling with Reverend Wright." --Jay Leno

"This thing just grinds on and on. Barack Obama won in North Carolina. Hillary Clinton barely won in my home state in Indiana, and again, we're hearing that the Clinton campaign is in financial trouble. They need money, desperately need money. And as a matter of fact, to raise money, earlier today. Hillary Clinton entered a wet pantsuit contest." --David Letterman

Oh What A Secret

It was fitting that Philo Farnsworth should be a contestant on the television show I’ve Got A Secret. He had perhaps the most important secret in the history of the show. Without his secret there would not have been a television show, any television show. Because you see, Philo Farnsworth invented television. Not only that, he invented it when he was a 14-year old high school freshman. Years later in a patent fight with RCA, his high science teacher would testify to drawings Farnsworth made on a blackboard in class. Farnsworth won.

After his secret was revealed he was asked what he was working on. It almost sounds like he is describing HDTV and TIVO. But this interview was in 1957!

Compared to inventing television as a 14-year old it is perhaps not the most remarkable thing about him. But his appearance on I’ve Got A Secret was Farnsworth's one and only appearance on television. And here it is:

Gaming the Game Show

Michael Larson was an unemployed man from Lebanon Ohio who worked summers driving an ice cream truck. He watched a lot of TV, including the game show Press Your Luck. By using a VCR and going through the show frame by frame he was able to memorize the patterns used on their game board. Contents would “spin” the board hoping to win cash and prizes and avoid “whammys” that would erase all your winnings. Larson borrowed the money to get to the show and bought a dress shirt to wear on the show at a thrift store for 65 cents. Larson ended up winning over $110,000 in one day (a then record). CBS argued he had cheated but eventually paid him the money.

Here in 5 parts is Michael Larson’s Appearance on Press Your Luck.

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Unfortunately, Larson lost some of his winnings in a ponzi scheme and had between $40,000 and $50,000 (all he had left) in cash stolen from his home. He died in 1999 of throat cancer on the run from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Karl Rove Analyzes The Race

Karl Rove, Bush’s foremost political advisor, has taken on an almost mythical persona on the left as an evil sorcerer responsible for every bad thing that has happened to Democrats in the last 8 years. Hillary runs a negative commercial about Obama, Rove was behind it. In reality, Rove is a highly intelligent political strategist. Now a contributor to Fox News, Rove’s analysis is available to all of us. In today’s Wall Street Journal, Rove has an Op-Ed entitled It's Obama, Warts and All.

His analysis of the race as it stands today is fascinating. I am not sure what to excerpt, so I suggest you read it all.

Some Advice For Bush

Last week I noted that Bush’s extreme unpopularity was due in large part to the fact that for the first time since 1952, with no incumbent president or vice-president running (and therefore having an interest in defending Bush’s record), the public gets a very one sided anti-Bush message. Victor Davis Hanson talks about this in his column Give ‘em Hell, Dubya. Hanson explains that Bush’s record really is defensible.

Last week, I asked a fierce Bush critic what he thought were the current unemployment rate, the mortgage default rate, the latest economic growth figures, interest rates and the status of the stock market.

He blurted out the common campaign pessimism: “Recession! Worst since the Depression!”

Then he scoffed when I suggested that the answer was really a 5 percent joblessness rate in April that was lower than the March figure; 95 to 96 percent of mortgages not entering foreclosure in this year’s first quarter; .6 percent growth during the quarter (weak, but not recession level); historically low interest rates; and sky-high stock market prices.

There are serious problems — high fuel costs, rising food prices, staggering foreign debt, unfunded entitlements, and annual deficits. Yet a president or vice president running for office (and covered incessantly by the media) would at least make the argument that there is a lot of good news, and that the bad that offsets it could be shared by a lot of culpable parties, from the Congress to the way we, the public, have been doing business for the last 20 years.

Hanson goes on to explain why Bush should follow the example of Harry Truman, the last President to be in this position and defend his record.

The American people are more interested in exactly how they are going to improve things, rather than hearing each hour how our collective problems are simply the fault of one man. Searing “Bush did it” into the public conscious won’t resolve our energy, economic, or foreign-policy challenges.

The truth is that America is providing unprecedented amounts of money to address the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Tax cuts brought in greater, not less total revenue. International trade agreements created more, not fewer, jobs. Security measures at home, and losses suffered by terrorists abroad, in part explain the absence of a second 9/11.

And drilling in ANWR and off the coasts and building more nuclear power plants, refineries, and clean coal plants — if the Congress would only approve — could provide a short-term mitigation of energy prices until we reach a new generation of clean-burning and renewable fuels.

George Bush could learn from “Give ‘em Hell, Harry.” A disliked Truman never went silent into the night, but defended his record until the very end — and was ultimately rewarded for it.

I understand Hanson’s point. I wonder though if Bush is avoiding a vigorous defense in order to make it easier for McCain to distance himself from Bush. Though if Bush is able to raise his approval rating, that in and of itself should help McCain. Kind of like swimming with one cement shoe instead of two.

The Power Of Blogging

I started this blog because I had thoughts and ideas I wanted to share. I try to make what I write (and or link to) here interesting, funny and/or informative. But I don’t break any stories here and I doubt that will change soon. But bloggers can and do break stories and these stories can have profound effects. Take Michael Brodkorb’s "Minnesota Democrats Exposed" for instance. Brodkorb’s blog is having a profoundly negative effect on Al Franken’s Minnesota Senate Campaign. Franken is the former SNL writer/performer who became Air America’s liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh. That didn’t work out so well as Air America has teetered on the edge of bankruptcy virtually since its founding. Franken decided to return to the state where he was raised to run for the Senate. That’s where Brodkorb and his blog come in. As AP reported:

From the kitchen table in his tranquil suburban neighborhood, Brodkorb for the last year has used his blog "Minnesota Democrats Exposed" to launch a furious political assault on Franken. He's labeled the former comedian and liberal commentator a "mean-spirited and un-Minnesotan" candidate who's running a "desperate and ridiculous" campaign.

That's routine stuff in the world of political blogging, but in the last two months Brodkorb has scored two direct hits that have the Franken campaign reeling. Brodkorb scooped the traditional media by detailing extensive bookkeeping problems in New York and California that ultimately prompted Franken, this week, to pay about $70,000 in back taxes to 17 states.

The stories have knocked Franken off balance as he prepares to take on Sen. Norm Coleman, in what's expected to be one of the most expensive and toughest-fought U.S. Senate races this year.

What effect has this story had on the Franken campaign? As Minnesota Democrats Exposed reports:

“A new SurveyUSA poll shows voters are turned off by Democratic Senate candidate Al Franken’s recent tax problems.

The 500-person survey showed 59 percent of people say Franken’s tax issues make them less likely to vote for him. Franken failed to pay for workers’ compensation insurance for his personal corporation and to pay income tax in 17 states since 2003. Just 31 percent said the problems made no difference.

More than half, 51 percent, said Franken should withdraw from the race, while 38 percent said he should stay in.

Another SurveyUSA poll of 700 adults showed Sen. Norm Coleman (R) reopening his lead over Franken, 52-42. Franken had narrowed the gap in recent months to near-even. Franken had the support of 67 percent of Democrats, while Coleman received 99 percent of Republicans. Franken maintained a sizable edge among independents, though, 57-33.” Source: The Hill, May 5, 2008

I always found Franken entertaining on SNL. Here’s hoping he loses so he can go back to telling political jokes instead of being one himself. Maybe someday I will get to break a story that will break a Democrats heart.

Moving Windmills

This is a really inspiring video.

McCain Declines Secret Service, Dares Assassins To Try Something

McCain Declines Secret Service, Dares Assassins To Try Something

Preachers In Space

"Barack Obama spoke today about the need to send a man into space. The man he wants to send? The Reverend Jeremiah Wright." --Jay Leno

"David Blaine today broke the world record for holding his breath, on 'Oprah' - 17 minutes, four seconds. Blaine has now frozen himself, he's starved himself, he's gone without sleep for weeks, and deprived himself of oxygen. Today, Dick Cheney said, 'See, it's not torture. It's magic.'" --Jimmy Kimmel

"President Bush has just been accused of trying to avoid questions about the economy. Because during yesterday's press conference, he told a reporter that she looked good in yellow and then asked about her baby. Even more embarrassing for Bush, the reporter was Wolf Blitzer." --Conan O'Brien

Careless Crimes Of The Fifties

Iron Man Kicks Ass

I have to say I was never a huge fan of Iron Man. I don’t think I ever read an Iron Man comic. But I saw the new film over the weekend and it was awesome. It had equal parts humor and action, and the best thing in the movie by far was Robert Downey Jr.’s performance. I want to see sequels. Fortunately that doesn’t seem to be an issue as it made over $100 million dollars this weekend. But let’s not take any chances, go out and see it as many times as possible.

I Agree With Hillary, It Must Be Chilly In Hell

It doesn’t happen often, but this morning there is something about which Hillary Clinton and I agree. Over the weekend, Hillary stated that if she were president, and Iran used nuclear weapons to attack Israel, she would “obliterate’ Iran. Barack Obama said those words were too much like the foreign policy of George Bush. Read about it here.

"It's not the language we need right now, and I think it's language reflective of George Bush," Obama told NBC's "Meet the Press."

Well maybe that’s why I agree with her.

This is a great example of why Barack Obama should not be president. I personally am of the opinion that the United States should do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including, as a last resort, military action. I understand there are those that disagree. They argue that we survived a nuclear armed Soviet Union through deterrence; we can survive a nuclear armed Iran the same way. I am not sure that will work with Iran. President Ahmadinejad, who has called for wiping Israel off the map, is a religious zealot. As I have argued before he may very well believe Iran could survive all out war with Israel or even the United States. After all, how could he lose if God wants him to win? But if deterrence is going to be your policy, make sure your message is unambiguous. The Columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote about this idea last month.

How to create deterrence? The way John Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis. President Bush should issue the following declaration, adopting Kennedy’s language while changing the names of the miscreants:

It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran.

This should be followed with a simple explanation: “As a beacon of tolerance and as leader of the free world, the United States will not permit a second Holocaust to be perpetrated upon the Jewish people.”This policy — the Holocaust Declaration — would establish a firm benchmark that would outlive this administration. Every future president — and every serious presidential candidate — would have to publicly state whether or not he supports the Holocaust Declaration.

Well Senator Obama, do you support the Holocaust Declaration or is that too much like George Bush?

Bush. Unpopular, But In Good Company

A new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released yesterday indicates that Bush has the highest disapproval rating of any president ever (or at least since they started polling such things). According to the poll, 71 percent of the American public disapproves of how Bush is handling his job as president

"No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup Poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.

His approval rating is 28%. I am among that 28% (this blog isn’t called “Minority Opinions” for nothing). But that doesn’t mean history will judge Bush as harshly. After all the lowest approval rating (22%) and now second highest disapproval rating of 67% belonged to Harry Truman. Today Truman is considered to be one of our greater presidents.

The high disapproval rating is really a function of circumstances. For the first time since 1952 we have a presidential election where neither a sitting president nor vice-president is running. No one therefore has a strong incentive to fight back to defend the administrations record. McCain certainly isn’t making it a priority. The record low approval rating is then an effect of the one sided message being put out their by the candidates and the media. Don’t believe me? Who was president in 1952? Harry Truman.

Some Thoughts On Global Warming

Contrary to the accepted wisdom, not all scientists agree that global warming is due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. An alternative theory that the major determinant in climate change is sunspot activity is gaining traction as evidence mounts in its favor. As Chris Horner writes on NRO’s Planet Gore:

Sunspots are magnetic storms on the sun's surface that are used as a proxy-measure for the Sun’s interplanetary magnetic field. As Henrik Svensmark and Fred Singer argue, the Sun’s magnetic field effects cloud formation in the Earth’s upper atmosphere. The more magnetically active the sun is, the fewer cosmic rays reach our upper atmosphere. When cosmic rays do reach the Earth, they react with atmospheric gasses to free nuclei that help seed cloud formation, cooling the Earth’s surface. No sun spots = more clouds = lower temperatures.

It should be noted that as sunspots have decreased on the sun over the past year, the average temperature of the Earth actually cooled by .6 degrees Celsius.

So perhaps CO2 isn’t responsible for global warming. Increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere may even be a good thing. Or at least that’s what Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama says in his article More Carbon Dioxide, Please

Well, plant physiologists have known for a long time that most vegetation loves more carbon dioxide. It grows faster, is more drought-tolerant, and is more efficient in its water use. While the pre-industrial CO2 concentration of the atmosphere was only about 280 parts per million (ppm) by volume, and now it is around 380 ppm, some greenhouses pump it all the way up to around 1,000 ppm. How can environmentalists claim that helping vegetation to grow is a bad thing?

He continues later in the article:

Still, the main worry has been that the extra CO2 could hurt the growth of plankton, which represents the start of the oceanic food chain. But recent research (published on April 18 in Science Express) has now shown, contrary to expectations, that one of the most common forms of plankton actually grows faster and bigger when more CO2 is pumped into the water. Like vegetation on land, it loves the extra CO2, too!

It is quite possible that the biosphere (vegetation, sea life, etc.) has been starved for atmospheric CO2. Before humans started burning fossil fuels, vegetation and ocean plankton had been gobbling up as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as they could, but it was like a vacuum cleaner trying to suck through a stopped-up hose.

Now, no matter how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere each year, the biosphere takes out an average of 50 percent of that extra amount. Even after we triple the amount of CO2 we produce, nature still takes out 50 percent of the extra amount.

Where my HumVee? I want to do my part to help the environment.

Strict new border policies are turning Canada into a foreign country

Really? That's what Salon is saying anyway. Here I thought it had been a foreign country ever since we broke away from England...