Oh Boycott!

Nancy Pelosi has suggested that President Bush boycott the opening of the Olympics in Beijing.

"I think boycotting the opening ceremony, which really gives respect to the Chinese government, is something that should be kept on the table," Pelosi, D-Calif., told "Good Morning America" co-anchor Robin Roberts in an interview airing Tuesday. "I think the president might want to rethink this later, depending on what other heads of state do."

What better way to marginalize the true enemies we are fighting a war against than to make a political statement against a country that at some point in the near future may turn out to be an ally.

Ohh Momma!

Chelsea Clinton seems to be keen to taking offense to any question involving her parents and the Lewinsky scandal. (Here's a video of the first time she was asked about Monica)

"It's none of your business," she said. "That is something that is personal to my family. I'm sure there are things that are personal to your family that you don't think are anyone else's business either."

Right Hon, except my dad wasn't president of the United States and my mom isn't running for that position either. In fact, neither of my parents had extramarital affairs for that matter. Unlike the young Obama girls, who are just kids and are present just for photo-ops and probably don't know much about politics at their age, you, Miss Clinton, are a surrogate giving speeches on your mother's behalf, trying to convince the American people why she is qualified to become president. Questions involving her ability to manage her homelife are not out of reach when the people are assessing her ability to manage the nation.

The Lewinsky scandal was an integral part of Bill Clinton's second term as president, so questioning his wife's role and somewhat permissive nature regarding her husband's infidelity is not out of bounds when doing a Q and A with a campaign surrogate. Her response the first time the question was posed was similar.

Chelsea Clinton appeared taken aback by the question, saying, "Wow, you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question in the, I don't know maybe, 70 college campuses I've now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business."

I guess "bitch" runs in the family. As a matter of fact, it appears the trait of revealing as little as possible about your private life, as well as being offended when the media places that responsibility upon themselves. Maybe it's time to employ the "Vast right-wing conspiracy" rhetoric again.

Out da club

This sounds like the beginning of a bad political joke, but what do 50 Cent and Bill Richardson have in common? Both come from minority backgrounds and have reached success with major contributions from others (Richardson with the Clinton Administration and 50 with Dr. Dre). Both have also now left the Clintons in favor of Barack Obama (Link via Drudge)

I heard Obama speak," the rapper told the MTV News crew assembled at his Connecticut mansion to hear the new G-Unit LP and talk about his upcoming video game. "He hit me with that he-just-got-done- watching-'Malcolm X,' and I swear to God, I'm like, 'Yo, Obama!' " He threw his fist in the air. "I'm Obama to the end now, baby!"

Word. Here's a ripe bit of sarcasm courtesy of the writer.

While Governor Richardson has begun to speak out on behalf of Obama at campaign stops and on television, it was unclear at press time whether 50 will receive similar requests from the Obama team.

I'm sure right now Fiddy's looking up words that rhyme with "hope" and "change".

UPDATE: I've been working on some lyrics and here's the best I can come up with

Yo, yo, yo
Turn the mic'phones up on all ya'll muthafuckin' headsets
I got two words: Fuck NAFTA
Bomb for multinationals but the nation gets tha shaft-a
I'm talkin' 'bout single-payer healthcare
To get ya'll bitch-asses offa welfare
Bush's domestic policies ain't fuckin' fair
Just talk to my boy, Reverend Jeremiah Wright
He'll put ya in yo place and get ya ready to fight our plight, AAAAAIIIIGGGGHT???


More to come, maybe.

Fitna

Well, I just watched Fitna today for the first time. For those of you not in the know, Fitna is a short film by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, juxtaposing verses in the Koran with Muslim acts of terrorism and quotes from the imams advocating such attacks.

Via Hot Air, I saw a link to an editorial written by a Muslim journalist, Fatma Aykut, who offers a response.

A desire to shock also compelled Wilders to include footage from the beheading of a hostage, uncensored and uncut. The camera fixes on the severed head as the scene fades out. The only problem is that the news value of this footage is absolutely zero. The viewer finds herself wondering: "When is Wilders actually going to shock me?"

I guess video-recorded decapitations have really lost their luster for Aykut. Maybe the terrorists should step it up a notch to actually "shock" Muslim journalists.

Wilders' accompanies these "shocking images" with quotations from the Koran, an effort to expose Islam's holiest text as a well-spring of hate. That makes it difficult for me, a totally average Muslim, to defend Islam as a peaceful religion. These quotations are not made up -- they can actually be found in the Koran. Passages from the holy book that rail hatefully against Jews have, unfortunately, long been misused as propaganda. That is tragic, as it is tragic that similar anti-Semitic passages are just as common in the Bible.

The most notable difference in the anti-Semitism in the Bible as opposed to that in the Koran is that Catholic bishops worldwide aren't using these passages as a rallying cry for another Jewish holocaust. Identifying Islam as "a peaceful religion" might be the most Orwellian phrase in common vernacular today. She goes on...

The film's title, "Fitna," can be translated as "chaos," and that describes the first 10 minutes of the film. An endless stream of fear-mongering images promotes the cliché of Muslims as savages -- a horde of bearded, dark-skinned men in long white robes. The viewer finds herself asking, "What is this film trying to achieve? What does the film maker want?"

I can only assume Wilders wants radical Islam portrayed in the media and by Western governments as a "horde of bearded, dark-skinned men in long white robes" willing to kill infidels at a whim and wanting to institute Sharia law on all nations.

But he chooses to ignore certain realities of Muslim life in Europe: The high rate of unemployment among immigrants, the slim chances of receiving a good education, the daily encounters with racism and the countless immigrant children -- particularly boys -- who are abandoned.

This begs the question then, why immigrate? If Muslim life is so terrible in Europe, why not stay put in the Islamofascist states? To quote my new hero, Mark Steyn:

"As one is always obliged to explain when tiptoeing around this territory, I'm not a racist, only a culturist. I believe Western culture -- rule of law, universal suffrage, etc. -- is preferable to Arab culture: that's why there are millions of Muslims in Scandinavia, and four Scandinavians in Syria. Follow the traffic. I support immigration, but with assimilation."

In the end of her assessment of Fitna, Aykut offers up this gem.

To that end, "Fitna" surprised me. One can argue that it is overhyped -- Wilders shows nothing but facts, even if they are somewhat one-sided.

How dare he poorly portray Islam by making a movie stringing together a bunch of facts.

An hour without power

I was torn between either watching the UNC-Louisville game last night or non-stop blogging for the duration of "Earth Hour" last night at 8. As you can tell by looking at the blog, I chose March Madness. Is there anything more annoying in our political climate than the self-righteous environmentalist wackos? Besides the closely related animal-rights activists at PETA?

I have another rhetorical question. Is there a more perfect way to sum up the absurdity of the "sustainability" fetish than by having all the ecotards turn off their electricity for an hour? Somebody should tell the wanna-be Captain Planets that the DVR is still using power to record The Amazing Race 14.

The Sydney Opera House to San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge went dark as people switched off lights in their homes and skylines dimmed around the world on Saturday to show concern with global warming.

China's plastic bag factory must have missed the memo.

Up to 30 million people were expected to have turned off their lights for 60 minutes by the time "Earth Hour" -- which started in Suva in Fiji and Christchurch in New Zealand -- completed its cycle westward.

More than 380 towns and cities and 3,500 businesses in 35 countries signed up for the campaign that is in its second year after it began in 2007 in Sydney, Australia's largest city.

"Earth Hour shows that everyday people are prepared to pull together to find a solution to climate change. It can be done," said James Leape of WWF International, which was running the campaign.

Nah James, Earth Hour shows that everyday people, by and large, don't want to adopt your fascistic agenda, but through your green-lensed glasses, all you see is your underlings keeping the H3 and Lexus Hybrid in the four car garage for an hour, while they eat some vegetable chips and hummus and read An Inconvenient Truth by candlelight, thinking that somehow they're saving the whales.

In a tip of its virtual hat to the event, the background of Google's home page turned to black from white on more than a dozen country sites including Google.com. A message on the site read: "We've turned the lights out. Now it's your turn." and directed visitors to conserve energy when using computers.

Unfortunately, making the background black, while an excellent symbolic gesture, actually uses more energy, thus displaying the detachment of liberal doctrine from practical application and end results. (Link courtesy of Steyn at The Corner.) Oh wait, they aren't detached from applicable results, they just don't care.

Organizers of Earth Hour said that while switching off a light for one hour would have little impact on carbon emissions, the fact that so many people were taking part showed how much interest and concern at the climate crisis had taken hold. They said they plan a similar event March 28, 2009.

Who needs to actually do thing to save the environment when you have thousands of mindless followers worldwide willing to bend to your every whim, provided you attach an unsubstantiated, bogus cause to it?

Oh Colin

I assume you say that that quote is ironic because you think Obama has no economic plan...

Shouldn't he be worried about HRC?

I guess looking past her is one way to make Hillary seem irrelevant, but Obama attacked McCain's economic approach.

"John McCain has admitted he doesn't understand the economy as well as he should, and yesterday he proved it in giving a speech on the housing crisis," Obama told an auditorium of supporters.

Obama pointed out that McCain "said the best way for us to address the fact that millions of Americans are losing their homes is to just sit back and watch it happen. In his entire speech yesterday, he offered not one policy, not one idea, not one bit of relief to the nearly 35,000 North Carolinians who are forced to foreclose on their dreams in the last three months."

The irony is delicious. Furthermore, all this mortgage garbage is making me sick. I'm fairly certain that this issue will be resolved before McCain, Obama, or Clinton are president. It's just a hot-button issue now.

Pennsylvanity

Unless a shocking revelation about HRC comes out, Obama's going to get waxed.

Just how bad is documented by some key findings from a series of polls, including the Franklin and Marshal College Poll, all released recently. Almost none of the results bode well for Obama. Across the board Clinton is winning and winning big. She has decisively stopped Obama's earlier momentum in Pennsylvania--and seems set for a romp.

Statewide among Democrats, Clinton holds a lead that ranges from 16 to 26 points. The Real Clear Politics consensus estimate is roughly 16 points. She is winning every major region of the state except Philadelphia, while Obama has actually slipped slightly with blacks and more substantially with younger voters--two demographics that are critical backstops for him in the contest. He has also lost support with other key constituencies including white males and evangelicals.

The fact that Obama is losing ground among black voters is shocking. This of course begs the question that if the Democratic primaries were redone in most states, would Obama still have a delegate lead? It's obvious he may not stand as much of a chance as HRC in a general election against John McCain, something worrying to members of the DNC. It might not be as bad as it seems though.

For all these reasons, it's far too soon for the full figured lady to get ready to sing in this race. Obama is at his nadir in Pennsylvania. It will not get worse for him, and it could still be a very close contest. He has not begun to seriously engage in the state. Moreover his plausible path to victory through the Philadelphia suburbs remains an opportunity to be tapped.

To a remarkable degree for a candidate down by double digits, Obama may still control his own fate. In the next couple of weeks, we will see what he makes of that opportunity.

He's going to have to work hard and get high turnout in urban Philadelphia in order to change the outcome though. Obviously the ramifications of the Jeremiah Wright association are far-reaching.

Divided we're liberal

I saw an interesting commercial for the Divided We Fail PAC, who's mascot provides and interesting take on genetic engineering, by combining a donkey and an elephant. I decided I'd give their website a gander. (Noting that it's connected to the AARP should set off some warning signs.) Of course fronting as a group for some form of unity makes for a nice admirable cover-up, but if you look at their issues page, something stands out.

We believe...

Wellness and prevention efforts, including changes in personal behavior such as diet and exercise, should be top national priorities.

Forget protecting our civil liberties and securing our safety abroad, the state should make sure you don't eat too many Big Macs and hit up the gym every now and again! An unfit citizen is an unnecessary one!

We believe...

Workers should be provided with financial incentives to save, should have access to effective retirement plans, and should be able to keep working and contributing to society regardless of age.

Having money for when you need it later isn't incentive enough to save, the state should pay people to save! Even when you retire, you shouldn't tour the country in an RV, you should stay productive and help the state! The state is your friend and caretaker!

Hell Hath No Fury...

Than a Clinton in a political battle. This article basically sums up my feelings. Pardon my french, but fuck this bitch. After Texas/Ohio, if she had just quit, Obama would probably still be ahead of McCain, and would stand a good chance of winning the general election. Now? Not so much. I guess I can't say that I'm surprised, just a little disappointed, so say the least. Hope she's proud of herself when she becomes the new Ross Perot/Ralph Nader of our generation.

More stream-of-consciousness ranting

I'm not sure this is entirely fitting with the general political theme of this blog, but much as my conversion to conservatism seemed without any particular motivation, so too does my conversion, I suppose reversion, back to Christianity. The parallels I can attribute to nothing more than, no offense to liberals and non-theists, simply maturity.

I guess the best place to start with this exercise is self-exploration would be to answer a question I posed, as an atheist/agnostic, to those with more traditional religious belief: What would be the end result had you been born into a family espousing a different set of religious dogma? The obvious answer, one our multicultural, politically correct society would abhor, would be that I would then simply be wrong. Of course, this brief answer is patently chauvinistic, but what is more chauvinistic than any religious conviction? (I'll leave the Unitarians out of this assessment) I suppose saying other religions are "wrong" isn't the best terminology, and requires some qualification. Essentially, by taking on a particular theology, one acknowledges that their belief system is the most right, and that in some way or another, the others are wrong to different degrees.

Getting back to my story, even when I felt the strongest conviction against monotheism, I still felt that at one day I would eventually adopt a more traditional metaphysical worldview. I seriously doubt any folks with religious conviction come to terms with a notion that they will one day become atheists or agnostics. This doubt alone should have left me questioning the tenants of a non-theistic position.

Of course, many conversion stories involve some traumatic event contributing to a change of faith or the impact of someone deeply religious in ones life, but I have none present. My change was more spurred on by a general nagging feeling deep within the annals of my consciousness that even though empirical and in some senses, logical evidence leads towards atheism, there was something missing. My adoption of nihilism lead towards many sleepless nights wondering what the point of waking up the next morning was, what the point of studying was, what the point of having friends was. Many atheists and agnostics are able to continue with their day-to-day lives, not specifically addressing these concerns, but putting them on the backburner, and keeping up with their responsibilities. I wasn't able to do so, and it troubled me. If life ended the moment I died, and my entirety transformed into nothingness, then there would be no sizable difference between being a homeless person and being president of the United States. All would be the same in the end: nothing.

Of course when there's no metaphysical meaning to life, it makes it a hundred-fold easier to find meaning in all differing forms of hedonism. Some try to find meaning through sex, kleptomania, recklessness, violence, etc. I tried to find it looking down an empty bottle of Jack Daniels. Frankly, I could write thousands of words on how college life fosters and promotes a life of alcohol abuse, but this isn't the point I'm trying to make. Actually I don't really even know what point I'm trying to make.

Anyway, I'd wake up Saturday, Sunday, and sometimes Monday morning with a splitting headache, recalling the supposed fun I had had, and granted, many times I had thoroughly enjoyed myself the night before. However, recalling the question asked to Edward Norton towards the climax of American History X, when asked about his racism, "Where has this gotten you?" Where has the party lifestyle gotten me? Of course I have more friends now than I ever have had, but what common ground do we share? The never-ending quest for another party, another beer. I definately cherish all the friendships I have made, and no doubt, even if I stop partying (something which won't happen suddenly) they will remain. What I am critiquing is the lifestyle that goes along with our actions. The active suppression of intellectualism that is married to the numbing of the senses. I know I can have an intelligent conversation about geopolitics, literature, music critique, etc. with every one of my friends. However, if we were to engage in this at a large enough party, no doubt we would face scorn. Not necessarily direct objections, but rather a more indirect headwind in the form of just simply not meeting anyone.

After that last sentence, I just realized I have no significant interest in meeting anyone who does not share my passion for the deeper things in life. I suppose, next time I am at a party, maybe I will engage in conversation along those subject lines. Of course, my intellectual friends with overly-active libidos might object, but oh well. This essay has really diverged heavily from the original subject matter. I guess I'll finish and try to get it more on point.

Maybe I'm subject to the atheistic contention that religion is merely a tool to help people cope with the everyday strains of life, and to have purpose. It sure as hell beats the alternative.

Divide and Conquer

Here's an interesting article on Politico about racial divisions among Obama supporters.

For working-class whites — whose coolness toward Obama helped tilt Ohio to Hillary Rodham Clinton — Obama spoke with understanding about why they dislike busing and affirmative action. “Like the anger in the black community, these resentments aren’t always shared in polite company,” he said.

For Hispanics, who have sided with Clinton in the vast majority of states this election, he lashed pundits scouring polls for signs of tension between “black and brown” and said the two communities face a common heritage of discrimination and inadequate public services.

Finally, Obama sought to connect with white Jewish voters — potentially one of the rawest nerves of all amid the Wright controversy — denouncing those blacks who see “the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.”

Now I know that it's important for politicians to appeal to different demographics with an impending election. However, these three paragraphs highlight the strategy among Democrats to divide people based on racial, religious, class, or sexual distinctions and make them feel like victims, who need government intervention to right their wrongs. Obama's candidacy is becoming a joke the more and more I read about his embrace of victimology.

Since we're talking about Al Gore...

There's a nice column by Lorne Gunter on the National Post website about climate change and the incessant exaggeration portrayed by "scientists."

A slight drop in the oceans' temperature over a period of five or six years probably is insignificant, just as a warming over such a short period would be. Yet if there had been a rise of any kind, even of the same slightness, rest assured this would be broadcast far and wide as yet another log on the global warming fire.

The context Gunter uses for his data are from buoys referred to as the Argo Buoy Movement which take different measures of ocean water around the globe constantly submerging and reemerging to provide new data. What they've showed is a general cooling trend over the past few years and Gunter analyzes it to a tee. Here's more:

Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma. "It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming," Dr. Willis told NPR.

Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well within the natural range of temperature variation.

I'm not saying for sure the models are wrong and the Argos and satellites are right, only that in a debate as critical as the one on climate, it would be nice to hear some alternatives to the alarmist theory.

I don't understand why there's such a "consensus" for the sensationalist theory of global warming when data suggests otherwise. I took a class last semester pushing the alarmism and was totally shocked at how the professors pushed the "consensus" without any sort of opposing views.

An inconvenient fluke

Link courtesy of Drudge.
The Democrat electorate is split about 50/50 as to whether they want Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton as president, so if there's a deadlock going into the convention, the obvious choice is Al Gore.

“If it (the nomination process) goes into the convention, don’t be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket,” Mahoney said.

A compromise candidate could be someone such as former vice president Al Gore, Mahoney said last week during a meeting with this news organization’s editorial board.

If either Clinton or Obama suggested to a deadlocked convention a ticket of Gore-Clinton or Gore-Obama, the Democratic Party would accept it, Mahoney said.

Besides an idiot, Mahoney is a Democratic representative from Florida. I guess when your state has no say in the nominating process it doesn't matter if you actually select one of the primary candidates as your nominee. The common thought all along has been that if HRC is the nominee, all the Obama people will be pissed off and do something rash, and if Obama is the nominee, the HRC people will do the same. Anyone who's taken any basic logic class knows that the obvious conclusion that follows from these premises is that Al Gore should be the nominee.

I know it sounds like I'm against Al Gore as the Democratic nominee, but this would actually be a great event. The Obama and the Hillary people are both going to be in a tizzy if something like this happens, so McCain would all but have the presidency locked up.

UPDATE: Whenever I read an article involving a member of the House of Representatives, I like to see how they measure up on Club for Growth's RePork Card, which measures how the legislator voted to strip needless spending added on to bills. Mahoney scored an impressive 4%.

Any marginalizing of your party you can do, I can do better

A friendship that emerged under similar circumstances as the kids who aren't really friends, but sit together at the school lunch table, because none of the other tables want them there, John McCain and Joe Lieberman have been buddy-buddy.

When McCain needed a quick reminder in Jordan last week on how to characterize Islamic radicals in Iraq receiving aid from Iran, Lieberman was there to whisper into his colleague’s ear. A day later in Israel, the Connecticut senator proved equally helpful, stepping in to help McCain clarify the meaning of the Jewish holiday of Purim.

Whether wearing yarmulkes together amid the throngs at Jerusalem’s Wailing Wall, meeting reporters outside 10 Downing Street in London or sporting matching suit-and-sweater combos at a snowy New Hampshire town hall meeting, the two have been nearly inseparable since Lieberman endorsed McCain last December.

The second paragraph makes the duo seem less like political allies and more like retired gay vacationers. The Democrats' rejection of Lieberman a few years ago may come and bite them in the ass when trying to portray McCain as another Bush lackey. In fact, McCain probably has more in common, in terms of policy, with Joe Lieberman than many of the Republican evangelicals in Congress, a fact the DNC is trying to mask.

That depends on what the meaning of the words "sniper fire" is

Courtesy of Ben Smith's blog at Politico, in an absolutely shocking turn of events, it turns out a Clinton told a lie. I'm not sure where this ranks in relation to the "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," but HRC is guilty of a little embellishment.

Earlier this afternoon, Sen. Hillary Clinton came to the Daily News and Inquirer building here in Philadelphia -- where she's seeklng the Daily News editorial board endorsement -- and I had a chance to ask her about a controversy that's increasingly dogged her campaign the last few days: Whether she misrepresented the danger of her March 1996 trip to a U.S. military base in Bosnia in an effort to boost her foreign policy credentials.

Clinton acknowleged today for the first time that it was a "misstatement" when she said in a major prepared foreign policy speech last week that "I remember landing under sniper fire" but also tried to brush off the entire issue as "a minor blip." She also gave a revised account of her airplane landing and her tarmac greeting at the Tuzla Air Force base 12 years ago -- seeking to explain a picture re-published this weekend in the Washington Post showing her and daughter Chelsea calmly greeting an 8-year-old girl.

When the telephone at the White House rings at 3 a.m., who's going to bullshit the most?

In the week since that remark, whicj echoed other recent statements about her trip, several journalists - most notably Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post -- have found holes in what Sen. Clinton said. In particular, Dobbs said none of more than 100 contemporaneous accounts mentioned sniper fire and that the Associated Press reporter on the trip had no recollection of any weapons fire. Dobbs also reported that CBS news footage shows the then-First Lady walking calmly from the C-17 transport plane as well as a number of dignitaries -- in addition to the 8-year-old Emina Bicakcic, a Muslim girl who read a poem in English -- waiting there.

Hey when you're running against a man who spent five and a half years as a POW in Vietnam, any effort to make it seem like you were in some dangerous foreign experience has to be a plus. Of course it's a given that in order for any sizable impact to be had, it helps when there's some validity to your claims.

Ohhh THAT liberal media

Compare CNN's coverage of Kwame Kilpatrick and Larry Craig.

Here's some excerpts from the Craig article outlining his politics and party affiliation:

A Republican senator pleaded guilty earlier this month to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge stemming from his arrest at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, according to state criminal records.

...

In recent years, Craig's voting record has earned him top ratings from social conservative groups such as the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council.

He has supported a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, telling his colleagues that it was "important for us to stand up now and protect traditional marriage, which is under attack by a few unelected judges and litigious activists."

In 1996, Craig also voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition to same-sex marriages and prevents states from being forced to recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples legally performed in other states.

Craig has also opposed expanding the federal hate crimes law to cover offenses motivated by anti-gay bias and, in 1996, voted against a bill that would have outlawed employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, which failed by a single vote in the Senate.

Craig has endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the 2008 presidential race. The senator was named in February, along with Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah, as Romney's liaison to build support among GOP senators.

It mentions that he is a Republican, social conservative, etc. Now here's some excerpts from the Kilpatrick article outlining some similar information in lieu of his own sex scandal. Oh wait. There isn't any. It doesn't even identify Kilpatrick as a Democrat. Splendid balanced coverage CNN. Kudos to you. I think I'm going to stop linking to CNN from now on.

My platform for any elected office

I hereby solemnly swear to the great reader(s) of this blog that if I am ever elected to any public office, the only vagina my penis is going to come in contact with is that of my future wife.

That said, we've got another political sex scandal on our hands, this time courtesy of Detroit.

A Wayne County prosecutor said Monday she will seek felony charges against Detroit's embattled Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

Kilpatrick, who is married, has been snarled in a well-publicized sex scandal since January after The Detroit Free Press reported he exchanged romantic text messages with his then-chief of staff, Christine Beatty.

The Detroit Free Press reported in January that in an analysis of nearly 14,000 text messages on Beatty's city-issued pager, it found some from 2002 and 2003 that indicated the two were having a romantic affair.

The newspaper report contradicted testimony Kilpatrick gave last August in a court case brought by police officers against the mayor and the city of Detroit alleging the mayor retaliated against the officers for their role in investigating his office. Critics alleged that Kilpatrick committed perjury in the case and called for his resignation.

In testimony during that case, Kilpatrick and Beatty both denied having a romantic relationship.

Will this ever end? I mean I knew politics and sex scandals go hand-in-hand, but this is starting to get ridiculous. Based on the little article about the charges against Kilpatrick, this sounds a lot like what happened to Clinton. Maybe Kilpatrick needs to work on biting his bottom lip a little harder so he looks marginally more sincere next time he lies to his constituents.

Oh really, Barack?

Anyone who saw Obama's supposedly magnificent speech on race and what not probably remembers this attempt to contextualize Rev. Wright's bigotry.

Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Of course I never heard anything controversial from any minister of any church I attended, and I doubt John McCain did either. Reuters did an article on Dan Yeary, McCain's minister today.

The 69-year-old Yeary adheres to the Southern Baptist belief that gay marriage and homosexual relations go against Biblical scripture, hot-button issues for many in the United States.

"The Bible is pretty clear about it, in my opinion it specifically calls it a sin. I also am a sinner and you are a sinner. ... Did Jesus Christ love homosexuals? I'm sure he did," Yeary said.

For something he is theologically opposed to, this isn't nearly as strongly bigoted language as "God damn America." Granted, knowing he is doing an interview with Reuters, he is going to curb his tongue, but I doubt Rev. Wright would be this restrained.

Biting the hand that fed him

About a month ago I wrote about the potential repercussions of former presidential candidate Bill Richardson's endorsement.

Based on his past history, I'd say Richardson will probably endorse Clinton, in her final push for candidacy. However, this severely hurts his chances of getting Obama's VP spot, something he is obviously vying for on a Clinton ticket. This said, his vice-presidential aspirations, in combination with Obama's status as the solidified front runner, may make him lean towards an Obama endorsement.

Well today, he endorsed Obama.

Declaring that Sen. Barack Obama is an "extraordinary American," Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico endorsed Obama for the Democratic nominee for president on Friday.

Later in the article:

Richardson was secretary of energy and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President Bill Clinton. He said he remains friends with the Clintons, and watched the Super Bowl with Bill Clinton this year.

Richardson's endorsement may be more important for its influence on superdelegates, the nearly 800 Democratic party officials whose backing will be essential for either candidate to win the party's nomination, according to CNN's senior political correspondent, Candy Crowley.

Richardson's also changed his look, sporting a nice goatee, so he looks a little less like a jolly, rotund, benevolent governor and more like even-mannered, rotund, benevolent governor. Like I said earlier though, I'm seeing an Obama/Richardson ticket, provided Barack wins the nomination. In potentially the worst analogy in the history of analogies, Clinton confidant, and former Mr. Clean model, James Carville compared Richardson to Judas Iscariot.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

So under this pretense, the Clintons are Jesus, and Monica Lewinsky could be seen as Mary Magdelene depending on your take of the gnostic gospels. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." becomes "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

The problem with this analogy is that Hillary Clinton isn't even the most messianic candidate in her own primary. Richardson responded.

"Well, I'm not going to get in the gutter like that," Richardson said. "And you know, that's typical of many of the people around Sen. Clinton. They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency."

That's so true.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air evidently came up with the comparison before I did, though not as far reaching with the analogy.

From pastor to passport in seconds

Obama's passport info leaked.

Two State Department employees were fired recently and a third disciplined for improperly accessing electronic personal data on Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The officials, all contract workers, used their authorized computer network access to look up files within the department's consular affairs section, which processes and stores passport information, and read Mr. Obama's passport application and other records, in violation of department privacy rules, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

First it's ties to a corrupt contributor. Then it's a racist minister. Now it's knowing that he vacationed in the Bahama's 4 years ago and was marginally more handsome when his passport photo was taken. Tell me, Washington Times, what's the big deal?

Government records of political candidates are tightly restricted because of concerns they could be used against candidates or the data could be altered as part of campaign dirty tricks

Oh Jesus, the Republicans are going to change his name to McLovin, aren't they?

Passport application data includes such details as date and place of birth, e-mail address, mailing address, Social Security number, former names and travel plans. Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961 to a Kenyan father and American mother. He lived in Jakarta, Indonesia, from age six to 10.

I'm going to give you a second to take that last paragraph in. After the article describes how leaked personal information regarding a presidential candidate isn't good, they follow it up with a two sentence biography containing four factoids of personal information regarding a presidential candidate. Brilliant.

This makes "Jaws" look like "Finding Nemo"

If you ask me, it was really only a matter of time.

A woman on a boat died after a spotted eagle ray leaped from the water off the Florida Keys Thursday and struck her, officials said.

The force of the blow pushed the woman backward and she died when she hit her head on the boat deck, officials said.

I'm pretty sure I already saw this on a Sci-Fi Channel made-for-TV movie.

Television personality Steve Irwin was killed when a ray's barb pierced his heart in September 2006.

A month later, an 81-year-old Florida man, James Bertakis, survived after a ray leapt from the water and stung him in the heart, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

He spent five weeks on a ventilator and his recovery took several months, his sons told the Detroit Free Press in his former home state of Michigan.

When you get to be 81 years old, flying sting rays stabbing you right in the heart is God's way of saying, "stay on your toes, buddy."

Are They Stealing From the Mars Attacks! Playbook?

So I'm sitting in my Middle Eastern Studies class, and as many of you know, one of the downsides of taking notes digitally is that it is incredibly easy to get side-tracked. I was reading one of Mark Steyn's older columns about the differences in standards the coalition is held to compared to that of the Islamofascists. For some reason it made me think of the movie Mars Attacks!

Steyn was arguing about how the terrorists benefit from our high standards of human dignity, which I hope everyone would agree with and I thought of the multiple instances in the movie where the Martians would feign diplomacy and eventually massacre all the humans they were pretending to be friendly with. Later in the movie the Martians basically say to hell with the charade and just cut straight to the killing.

Now the movie itself can be interpreted as an allegory of the relationship between European colonists in America and the native peoples, although I can't identify the character who corresponds to Chief Opchanacanough, and I'm still trying to figure out how the hell Tom Jones fits in. But no allegorical interpretation of a work not explicitly an allegory is flawless, and my interpretation has holes too, besides the blatant asynchrony (The movie was made in 1996, when Islamofascism, though present in the Middle East, was more of a political afterthought).

Now to preempt the obvious objection that in the movie, the antagonist Martians are the invading force, whereas the coalition fulfill that role in the real world, I just want to say that's not an integral part of my comparison. I'm looking more towards the tactics employed by the parties involved and not a who's on who's turf type of argument. However, as an aside, I find it highly repugnant to attempt to justify systematic savage and inhumane acts of terror with the rationale that somehow torture and murder are justified when done to an invading force on one's homeland.

Now that I've lost nearly every potential reader by spending a paragraph essentially making a strawman argument, I'll get to my point (just to avoid confusion this doesn't mean I'm going to be brief).

Back to Steyn's column. His key argument is that the different standards of diplomacy (like the Geneva convention, my example, not his) make for one hell of a tough war to fight. On one hand, the coalition is taking nearly every precaution to avoid collateral damage, whereas the insurgents take no precautions. He's not saying the west should lower their standards to match the barbaric enemy we are fighting (although if this were the case the war would already be over), but rather that it's a fairly difficult obstacle to overcome. As bad as the Vietcong were, they at least recognized the value of American POWs as bargaining chips.

Anyone who's seen Mars Attacks! will instantly recognize the parallel which lead to the humans' early defeats in the movie. If Ann Landers ever were to try and help concerned individuals with the etiquette of war, she would have her hands full with the terrorists.

Dear Ann Landers,

One of my jihadist friends, "Akhmed" told me this neat idea he had on how to "take care" of infidel warriors, if you know what I mean. He said you can pretend to surrender, and when the American infidel pigs approach, shoot as many of them as you can. Secretly, I'm jealous I didn't think of it myself! Is it polite to use this tactic without telling "Akhmed" or should I let him know I am borrowing one of his ideas?

---Mixed Up Militant in Mosul, Iraq

Classless? Probably. Click the embedded link though. The openly deceptive tactic takes full advantage of the coalition soldiers' embrace of unwritten codes of war. Same was so in Mars Attacks!. The Martian "diplomats" kill the American and French presidents under the guise of diplomacy taking advantage of the general policy of leaders of sovereign nations to meet civilly, even when their priorities are at odds.

Then of course, every time the Martians take advantage of the Earthlings' naive trust and higher standards, they break out into a contagious cackle, which can only be the assumed reaction of the terrorists every time they kill a soldier, because of varying standards of combat. The game ain't fair, but that's just the way it is.

Keeping true to the allegory, the main military character is a stereotypical "God damn it we gotta nuke the sons o' bitches" general, who actually eventually succeeds in convincing the president to nuke the Martians. Unfortunately, the Martians have a device which sucks the missile up and it explodes inside and somehow turns into helium gas, inhaled by the Martians, which if you haven't seen a Martian high on helium, I highly recommend this gem. Now nobody rational would ever think it wise to use nuclear weapons on the Middle East, because, frankly, that could end the world, but there is a certain segment of American society who employs ignorant rhetoric along these lines, fitting my allegorical interpretation.

Of course, pointing to the decapitation of a reporter, who in the film is played by Sarah Jessica Parker, and has her head transplanted on her dog's body, is a bit obvious, but in the real struggle, that reporter was Daniel Pearl.

I'm sort of running out of ideas now, because it's been a while since I've seen the movie. So, I guess that makes this a pretty shitty allegory then, but hey, it was a pretty shitty movie, so I guess we'll call it square.

The Audacity of Reverse-Racism

One of the benefits of being a Rush Limbaugh listener is the access to his insights of showing liberal inconsistency. Anyone who's monitored the news for the past year or so know radio personality Don Imus got in a heap of trouble for referring to the Rutger's women's basketball team as "nappy headed hos." No doubt it was stupid to say this. Here's Obama's take when this happened.

"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."

Pardon my language, but this is a bunch of political bullshit. Reverend Jeremiah Wright employed much harsher rhetoric against white people than Imus ever did about black ones.

Little Do They Know

Now I'm not in Europe right now, so I'm going to refrain from saying anything along the lines of "Americans are stupid" as some celebrities have done in the past, but this poll is almost hilarious to me.

Survey respondents also ranked the Illinois senator highest -- 65 percent -- when asked who would work with both parties to get things done, compared with 56 percent who say McCain would and 52 percent who say Clinton would.

Before I go into my analysis, please go ahead and catch your breath from laughing. I guess McCain doing legislation with such Democrats and former Dems as Russ Feingold and Joe Lieberman is meaningless when Barack can just deliver a powerful speech saying how he plans to work with Republicans to get all his hard-line leftist ideas to pass. If anything, McCain might face trouble getting the members of his own damn party to work with him.

Those surveyed also give the lowest marks -- 50 percent -- to McCain when asked if they'd be proud to have him as president. Clinton came in with 57 percent, and Obama garnered 62 percent.

Isn't it obvious that the impact of the presidency of another old white guy isn't going to exactly make certain demographics really proud?

What Gaffe?

McCain gave a foreign policy address yesterday, and CNN is reporting some sort of gaffe.

McCain also made a gaffe Tuesday when he said several times that Iran, which is mostly a Shiite country, was training the predominantly Sunni militant group al Qaeda.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, whispered in his ear. Moments later, McCain responded, "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al Qaeda."

I understand how this is considered a gaffe, but to me it seems more like a Freudian slip. Something else stood out to me in the story.

McCain, who is known for having a tough stance on foreign policy, came under enormous scrutiny last year at a campaign event in South Carolina when he joked about bombing Iran.

Singing a rendition of the Beach Boys song "Barbara Ann," McCain changed the lyrics to "Bomb Iran," singing, "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

I guess that means every time Obama makes some sort of reference to a racial problem CNN will include a blurb that he's faced scrutiny for having a bigoted, anti-American minister. Hardly. Speaking of Obama, McCain's "gaffe" offered a chance of political opportunity. I'm going to try and avoid references to the grotesque mental image of Obama "needling" McCain. Funny word choice though.

"Just yesterday, we heard Sen. McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and Al Qaeda," Obama said during a speech on Iraq Wednesday morning. "Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no Al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America’s enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades."

I'm just going to guess that Senator Obama saw Fahrenheit 911 recently.

Obama's speech

Here it is, for those of you who want to read it.



Added by Colin: And video for the illiterate readers of the blog.

I Hate to Renege, but...

I'm having qualms about my thoughts that the Rev. Wright story should be dead and buried with Obama's denunciation. First of all, the idea that Barack had no idea the type of rhetoric Wright was using is absolutely absurd.

"Had I heard those statements in the church, I would have told Reverend Wright that I profoundly disagree with them," Obama said, adding, "What I have been hearing and had been hearing in church was talk about Jesus and talk about faith and values and serving the poor."

When the only soundbite available was Wright's whole "God damn America" indictment, this may have been plausible. However, it seems like everyday more and more clips of anti-American, blatantly racist sermons are coming out. Victor Davis Hanson compares it to the constant revelations during the Watergate scandal.

Let's throw out the possibility that Obama sleeps through church, and also assume he attends at least semi-regularly. How in the hell can he be so oblivious to the inflammatory speech coming from the pulpit? A year ago, Obama stopped Wright from saying the prayer at his presidential campaign announcement.

But Mr. Wright said Mr. Obama called him the night before the Feb. 10 announcement and rescinded the invitation to give the invocation.

“Fifteen minutes before Shabbos I get a call from Barack,” Mr. Wright said in an interview on Monday, recalling that he was at an interfaith conference at the time. “One of his members had talked him into uninviting me,” Mr. Wright said, referring to Mr. Obama’s campaign advisers.

Some black leaders are questioning Mr. Obama’s decision to distance his campaign from Mr. Wright because of the campaign’s apparent fear of criticism over Mr. Wright’s teachings, which some say are overly Afrocentric to the point of excluding whites.

Furthermore, Obama has never specifically said what exactly it is he disagrees with Wright about. Tomorrow, Obama's going to give a speech specifically addressing religion, race, and Wright's bigotry.

Speaking with reporters, Obama said the media is portraying Wright inaccurately.

"I think the caricature that is being painted of him is not accurate, and so part of what I will do tomorrow is to talk about how these issues are perceived from within the black church community for example which I think skews this very differently."

Caricature? If it looks like an anti-American, race-baiting, bigoted pastor using his bully pulpit to put forth an agenda seeped in fabrications and animosity towards the majority of the country's ideals, if it smells like an anti-American, race-baiting, bigoted pastor using his bully pulpit to put forth an agenda seeped in fabrications and animosity towards the majority of the country's ideals, well then, you know the rest.

I am very interested to hear how Barack thinks that portraying Wright as I and nearly every member of the media, liberal or conservative have, is inaccurate. His speech tomorrow may make or break his campaign.

McCain Interview with Hannity

Yesterday evening, John McCain was on the Hannity and Colmes Show for the entire hour where Sean Hannity interviewed him. I wasn't able to watch the whole thing, but here's a transcript.

I'm going to read the whole thing and comment on it, but obviously, that may take a while.

Bravobama

Obama repudiated the remarks by Rev. Wright. Read the whole thing, but here are some highlights.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

...

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

Barack's candor is admirable. This is the exact type of response that is necessary and should put this news story to rest.

LOOK AT ME, I'M MAKING A POST!!!

First things first...who can really blame Spitzer? That girl was/is smoking hot, a "WOULD" in every sense of the word, and while 5000 might be a bit much, in the words of Ferris Bueller, "If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up"

Anyway, I'm not even going to respond to Colin's attacks on the people surrounding Barack, especially the ones about his wife, which I think are only news because of interpretations about what they mean. He asked me which person I think is crazier, and it is definitely his pastor, but whatever, I digress.

Here is some very interesting news, which I saw coming from a mile away...Obama actually ended up winning more delegates than Clinton here in Texas, due to our unusual delegate allocation system and caucus voting.

Also, I've been noticing a shift in news from the war onto the economy, and I think this will probably be the focal point of the rest of the Democratic primaries and the national election. I can't find the link, but support for the war is back up over 50%, and there are even starting to be riots over housing concerns.

To all those young people reading this blog, if anyone even does, please READ IMPORTANT CONTRACTS before you sign them, and hey, if you can't pay for what you being loaned, it's probably a good idea to not sign it...just a thought. Also, credit cards...not a good idea, but that's a different subject for a different post. Sound financial behavior, get into it...please!

The Audacity of Association

Our great agent of change keeps having more and more questionable connections. First it was his wife, Michelle.

"That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."

And more.

“Hope is making a comeback and, let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change,” she said during a rally in downtown Milwaukee.

And more.

"We live in isolation, and because of that isolation, we fear one another... [Barack Obama] is going to demand that you shed your cynicism, that you put down your division, that you come out of your isolation.

... Barack Obama will require you to work....that you move out of your comfort zones, that you push yourselves to be better, and that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed."

And that's just his wife. Then there's the whole Rezko deal.

Rezko's behind-the-scenes connection in the Obama house deal became public as Rezko revealed personal financial details as he sought to post bail.

While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The house sold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was $625,000.

Then there's the minister of his church for 20 years, where the Obamas were married, and their children baptized. He's no longer the minister there, because evidently he's taken some position with the Obama campaign as a spiritual adviser or something like that.

In a sermon delivered at Howard University, Barack Obama’s longtime minister, friend, and adviser blamed America for starting the AIDS virus, training professional killers, importing drugs, and creating a racist society that would never elect a black man as president.

I urge anyone to read the full article of Rev. Wright's speech. It's alarming that someone considered by some to be the front-runner of the presidential race would use this man for spiritual guidance. He is a typical anti-American runt, spewing vitriol and cursing America. This story is even worse.

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

Absolutely insane. Rush just made a point of how the media pretty-much drove the Romney campaign into the ground because of his Mormonism, yet nobody's making a big deal about Obama's anti-American religious adviser.

Fallon Quits

The head of our military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, Adm. William Fallon resigned today.

Fallon, the head of U.S. Central Command, was the subject of a recent Esquire magazine profile that portrayed him as resisting pressure for military action against Iran, which the Bush administration accuses of trying to develop nuclear weapons.

In a written statement, he said the article's "disrespect for the president" and "resulting embarrassment" have become a distraction.

"Although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there," he said.

I smell a book deal.

There's bad news and then there's baaad news.

Now I always assumed most people didn't read anything I wrote. I never had any empirical justification of my claims, rather, just anecdotal evidence as observed in my peers. Well, now I have some numbers.

A majority of Americans do not read political blogs, the online commentaries that have proliferated in the race for the U.S. presidency, according to a poll released on Monday.

Only 22 percent of people responding to the poll said they read blogs regularly, meaning several times a month or more, according to the survey conducted by Harris Interactive.

Oh damn.

While blogs are largely considered the realm of young people who are most Internet-savvy, only 19 percent of people ages 18 to 31, and 17 percent of those ages 32 to 43, regularly read a political blog, the poll said.

The generation most likely to read such blogs are those age 63 or older, 26 percent of whom said they do so. Also, 23 percent of those ages 44 to 62 read them, the poll said.

Can I get a comment from someone in the 63+ demographic? Lord knows nobody my age is reading this thing.

A Political Sex Scandal!

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was connected with a prostitution ring.

The man described as Client 9 in the affidavit arranged to meet with a prostitute who was part of the ring, Emperors Club VIP, on the night of Feb. 13. Mr. Spitzer traveled to Washington that evening, according to a person told of his travel arrangements.

The affidavit says that Client 9 met with the woman in hotel room 871 but does not identify the hotel. Mr. Spitzer stayed at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington on Feb. 13, according to a source who was told of his travel arrangements. Room 871 at the Mayflower Hotel that evening was registered under the name George Fox.

The law enforcement official said that several people running the prostitution ring knew Mr. Spitzer by the name of George Fox, though a few of the prostitutes came to realize he was the governor of New York.

Of course, Spitzer is probably going to resign shortly, and being from Texas, I don't know much about his political activity. He's a Democrat, but that's irrelevant. Honestly, I find it abhorrent for anyone to break their marital vows, whether a prostitute is involved or not. However, I also believe it may be beneficial for prostitution to be legalized and regulated, much the same way the pornography industry is regulated. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business, but when one of the involved is breaking a commitment (a la marriage), this is, at the least, a morally questionable act.

As an afterthought, maybe Giuliani can run to take his spot.

Mississippi Mud

Obama's probably going to win Mississippi.

The Illinois senator is favored to win tomorrow's Mississippi primary, where more than one third of the state's electorate is African-American. The primary is also open to Republicans and independents, who have favored Sen. Obama but who polls show may favor Sen. Clinton in the state.

Sen. Obama leads his rival 58% to 34% in Mississippi, according to a poll Friday by American Research Group. He holds an even stronger advantage, 66%-31%, among registered Democrats in the state, while Sen. Clinton leads by 13 points among independents and Republicans.

It's a pretty irrelevant state. The campaigns will go on after this. After all, there's only six more weeks until Pennsylvania.

Can't lose for losing

Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, longshot presidential hopefuls in the past years primary contests both won their Congressional primaries yesterday.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) easily defeated a well-funded Cleveland city councilor, Joe Cimperman, and three other Democratic challengers.

Kucinich defeated Cimperman by a 50 to 35 percent margin. Three other Democrats — North Olmstead Mayor Tom O’Grady, anti-war activist Rosemary Palmer and 2006 candidate Barbara Ferris — split the remainder of the vote....

Meanwhile, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) handily defeated his Republican rival, Friendswood City Councilman Chris Peden, in tonight’s primary and will be heading back to Congress for another term.

Paul defeated Peden by a 70 percent to 30 percent margin.

I hadn't been keeping up with Kucinich's race, because, frankly, I don't really care. Ron Paul's race was curious though, from what I had read a couple of weeks ago, it looked like Peden was going to heavily challenge Paul. I guess polling was wrong. Astonishingly wrong. It was good to get somewhat of a libertarian message out through Paul's campaign, and better to see that he retained his House seat.

Surely this will stop the junkies!

The city of Chicago has put forth a measure attempting to ban small plastic bags used for the transportation of small quantities of drugs.

Tiny plastic bags used to sell small quantities of heroin, crack cocaine, marijuana and other drugs would be banned in Chicago, under a crackdown advanced Tuesday by a City Council committee.

Ald. Robert Fioretti (2nd) persuaded the Health Committee to ban possession of "self-sealing plastic bags under two inches in either height or width," after picking up 15 of the bags on a recent Sunday afternoon stroll through a West Side park.

Lt. Kevin Navarro, commanding officer of the Chicago police Department's Narcotics and Gang Unit, said the ordinance will be an "important tool" to go after grocery stores, health food stores and other businesses. The bags are used by the thousands to sell small quantities of drugs at $10 or $20 a bag.

Navarro referred to the plastic bags as "Marketing 101 for the drug dealers." Many of them have symbols, allowing drug users to ask for "Superman" or "Blue Dolphin" instead of the drug itself, he said.

Let's just go through a hypothetical now. Let's say you are a heroin addict, looking for a fix of some smack. Do you really care about which dealer has the more convenient way to transport the horse? This is a primary example of the failure of the war on drugs at attacking the wrong front of the problem of drug abuse. What needs to be done is to examine why people use drugs, and address that area of the issue (easier said than done, granted). Should we ban cigars that cost under $1, because they are primarily used for marijuana? This is a disgusting misuse of government time.

Oblinton/Clobama 2008

This morning Hillary Clinton hinted at sharing the ticket with Barack Obama.

So if Clinton became the nominee, inviting Obama aboard her ticket would help keep that support. Obama might be reluctant to join, figuring that if Clinton lost, he’d be able to run for the top job four years later. But he might accept her invitation at the behest of the party.

Obama would have much less reason to pick Clinton. He has made his campaign about the future, and her presence on the ticket would complicate that message. And she has not brought in voters he would automatically have trouble attracting.

I am absolutely adamant that this is not going to happen for the reasons outlined above. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will have far from a mandate from the Democratic voters, so putting the second-place person on the ticket would severely undermine the presumptive chief-executive from actually being the chief. Nobody wants their thunder stolen in the national election. If Clinton wins, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, from a political standpoint, Bill Richardson is the perfect bottom half of the ticket.

There's no way he'll be able to overshadow HRC, and with his tax-cutting agenda while governor of New Mexico, he should tempt independents to choose this ticket over McCain/Whoever.

Tuesday Wrap-Up

The results are in from today's races, with the exception of the Texas Democratic caucuses, which should come out some time between tomorrow and June. As I said earlier, John McCain won the Republican nomination, and thus all three primaries. The small states were a split for the Democrats with Barack Obama winning Vermont substantially, and Hillary Clinton doing the same in Rhode Island. However, as everyone knows, Ohio and Texas were the big dogs tonight, and Clinton appears to have dominated Ohio and come out with a slightly more marginal victory in the Texas primaries. As of now, only 22% of the Texas caucus results have come in, and Obama is ahead by about 10%.

What this means is, in addition to McCain being the official nominee for the GOP, is that the Democratic race will probably go on for another seven weeks, until the Pennsylvania primaries April 22. I know it's a far in the future, based on how trends have been, but polls at Real Clear Politics have Clinton up by around 9%.

The first real significant fact about yesterday's elections are how well Clinton did with voters who made their decision within the last three days. I can't find any statistics right now, but CNN cited some which showed her a clear favorite among these, especially in Ohio. I guess the kitchen-sink strategy worked.

Caucusfuck

I've been watching CNN the past half-hour or so, and the Texas caucus system is absolute insanity. Based on what Chipley wrote about an hour ago, what he went through was relatively easy. I can't find any articles to link to, but CNN has reported overwhelming turnout in our caucuses along the lines of not enough ballots in some places, and furthermore not enough room according to the guidelines set forth by the fire marshal. Madness? This isn't madness. THIS IS TEXAS!!!!!!!!!!

My roommate Ankit went to go caucus, and he hasn't gotten back yet. I'm not entirely sure if he was coming directly home, but his phone is off so I can't get ahold of him.

The Executive Endorsement

Evidently, John McCain is about to get a precarious endorsement.

There, according to sources close to the McCain, the Republican Senator will receive the endorsement of President George W. Bush.

I'm not entirely sure how to take this endorsement. I mean who else is he supposed to endorse? At the same time though, this is certainly a blow to McCain's attempt to distance himself from the president.

It's official

John McCain is the Republican candidate for president.

McCain, 71, gained the 1,191 delegates needed to claim the Republican nomination with a series of primary victories, completing a remarkable comeback that began in the snows of New Hampshire six weeks ago. President Bush invited him to the White House for a show of support on Wednesday.

My Texas Caucus snoozefest (experience)

Well, here is my story about my first caucus experience. I had a friend drive me to the polling place, which was a College Station ISD office building, and waited for about 15 minutes to go in. There ended up being about 60 people there, all democrats, the republicans only had about 6 people. There were only about 5 people over the age of 25 there as well. We had to wait in the halls because the republicans had the big room, and the only other room open, which was considerably smaller, was still being used for something concerning the regular vote, and we couldn't go in. It wasn't until about 30 minutes later that we were let in, AFTER the precinct captain for the Democratic party didn't show up, and some random people had to open up the packet with the rules and forms and do the whole process themselves.

And, here was the amazing process...you went in and wrote your information on a sheet as well as who you voted for...thats it.

The only reason for anyone to stay was to elect a representative to the state convention, who might then be a delegate to the national convention.

What a blast!

The only consolation was that Hillary was getting beat, from what I saw on the sheets, by, at best, a 5:1 ratio. Doesn't look good for Mrs. Clinton.

So yeah, no chairs thrown, no people locked out of the building, no shouting matches, no chants of "bros before hoes", "once you go black you never go back", "if its not white, its not right"...nothing. SNOOZEFEST.

HOWEVER...apparently Clinton's camp is reporting that some interesting activity DID happen at other places ...sounds like a sore loser to me, but whatever.

McCain, Obama Tops in Vermont

John McCain and Barack Obama each won their respective primaries in Vermont. McCain's domination was expected, and Obama's modest majority means he gets 3 delegates while Hillary Clinton gets 2.

I don't want to be the one to say that the results yielded by the citizens of Vermont are meaningless in the context of today's primaries, but the results yielded by the citizens of Vermont are meaningless in the context of today's primaries.

CNN's Bill Schneider suggests Obama's victory was almost solely because of Iraq, and he has the stats to back it up.

One of the key reasons this groups went for Obama? The Iraq war. While the issue has fallen in importance among voters in several other states, Vermont voters ranked it nearly as important as the economy, and those who said it was the number one issue went for Obama over Clinton by nearly 3 to 1.

Remember, Howard Dean, the uberliberal chairman of the DNC was Vermont's governor, before his failed attempt at the presidency. This is a clear indication of Vermont's status as a solid blue state.

NAFTA all, this is politics

What a terrible pun. Anyway I've been quite amused with all the anti-NAFTA campaigning going on with the two Democrats. Funny isn't it, how when one of, oh about 4 states that would benefit from us pulling out of NAFTA, is at the forefront of the nominating process both candidates make it seem as though problems isolated to the rust belt, located primarily in Ohio and Michigan, are in fact, problems facing the entire nation? Daniel Gross of Slate, nails it.

There's something outdated and Kabuki-like about the whole NAFTA drama, which was manufactured largely for consumption in Ohio and probably won't be going on a national tour.

Nationally, China has long since displaced Mexico as the bugaboo on trade issues. And it's increasingly difficult to argue that NAFTA has been a national tragedy. Yes, U.S. imports from Mexico have risen sharply since 1993, from $48 billion to $216 billion in 2006. But U.S. exports to Mexico have tripled in the same period, from $52 billion to $156 billion.

Wait, you mean to tell me free trade between two national economies is beneficial to both of them!?! Why, I thought when NAFTA was passed 14 years ago with largely bipartisan support it was going to damn our economy into the ground and turn Mexico and Canada into super powers. It goes on:

The fact that Mexican firms now export large quantities of goods to Canada and the United States means they are creating jobs—and incentives—for Mexicans to stay at home. In some ways, NAFTA has been a boon for nativists. Just think how much higher the northward flow of work-seeking immigrants from Mexico would have been in the absence of NAFTA.

This is such an obvious point, I don't really know how to go into it without being redundant. This is something Obama hinted at in one of the debates. By helping the Mexican economy, we curb some illegal immigration. Unfortunately he attacked NAFTA later in the debate, an agreement which has certainly helped the Mexican economy.

The rest of the article goes into how free trade with China has been one of the factors in the job loss in the rust belt. Thomas Sowell exposes the main factor.

Like the United Automobile Workers union in its heyday, unions in the steel industry and other industries piled on costs, not only in wage rates having little relationship to supply and demand, but in all sorts of red tape work rules that added costs.

State and local governments in what later became the rust belt also thought that they too could treat the industries under their jurisdiction as prey rather than assets, and siphon off more of the wealth created by those industries into state and local treasuries with ever higher taxes -- again, without considering repercussions.

This is possibly the most accurate assessment of the decline of industrial America I have read in a while. The sole responsibility of corporations is providing a safe product to consumers, while maximizing profit without breaking the law. The unions, when they carried the most political power, hiked up wages and benefits for the workers and lobbied government for employee friendly reform. What this has ultimately led to is the lack of motivation of corporations to employ people in these areas, because the cost of labor is too high, the taxes too extensive, and frankly, the government too union-friendly.

Ironically enough, the closest analogy I can come up with is global warming. Because we've worked so hard for our short-term magnificent benefit, we may end up suffering the consequences of our action in the long run, much like dead industrial sectors in Ohio and Michigan, among others.

"Radical Feminist Proves Self Idiot, Irrelevant Once Again"

This is how the headline would read, if I were the editor for the New York Observer. Granted, I haven't written a headline in about 2 years, so I'm a little rusty. To the story: Gloria Steinem, a woman who honestly, hasn't been relevant for about 40 years, give or take, had the audacity to try and attack McCain's war record. (This isn't a typo. Steinem actually attacked a former POW with countless military awards and honors. I know, I laughed too.)

Steinem raised McCain’s Vietnam imprisonment as she sought to highlight an alleged gender-based media bias against Clinton.

“Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], ‘What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?’” Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.

McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five and a half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, “I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so.”

Steinem’s broader argument was that the media and the political world are too admiring of militarism in all its guises.

“I am so grateful that she [Clinton] hasn’t been trained to kill anybody. And she probably didn’t even play war games as a kid. It’s a great relief from Bush in his jump suit and from Kerry saluting.”

This might be the most classless thing I have read in a while, yet it made me chuckle, because I'm sure McCain got a kick out of how much of a moronic statement this is. I love how frank the Observer is with the statement, "McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five and a half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly." The only thing more I could have asked was a reference to how he is unable to move his arms above his head, due to the torture.

In the 2004 election, John Kerry's attempted war-hero status was laughable and completely ripped to shreds. To be honest, I haven't seen McCain make any attempt to prove he is a war hero, because it isn't necessary. He is a war hero. He is also very humble with his service and while his surrogates may point to it as a qualification for his presidency, I have seen no indication of him doing so this election cycle.

Like I said before, Steinem hasn't been relevant for 40 years, and even then, most of what she said was pure garbage. When someone adheres to an outrageous philosophy like feminism, it's nearly a given that they will make outrageous statements like trying to discredit McCain's military service.

This is at the end of the article:

UPDATE: The Clinton campaign sends over the following statement from Howard Wolfson: "Senator Clinton has repeatedly praised Senator McCain's courage and service to our country. These comments certainly do not represent her thinking in any way. Senator Clinton intends to have a respectful debate with Senator McCain on the issues."

Funny how about once a week one of the major candidates has to renounce one of their supporters words. Obama had Farrakhan; McCain, Cunningham; and now, Clinton, Steinem. It seems as though many marginal wings of American politics are each trying to hijack a candidate to their cause.

Separate but Equal?

Obama recently gave a speech in support of same-sex civil unions, which has drawn some criticism of his reference to the Sermon on the Mount to defend his stance.

"I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other," he said, referring to unions that grant all the legal benefits of marriage, minus the name. "I don't think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That's my view. But we can have a respectful disagreement on that."

Let me just be frank, from a political standpoint, this is a boneheaded move. The people most passionate about the semantic argument between gay marriage and same-sex civil unions are evangelical Christians and the gay lobby.

With the oncoming GOP nomination of John McCain, Evangelicals are probably not going to turn out in large numbers this election, because of his somewhat moderate stance on social issues, including gay marriage.

However, he just marginalized a significant bloc of the Democratic base by suggesting the "separate but equal" concept of civil unions, but not the title of marriage. Furthermore, as a presidential candidate, he could have easily remained mute on this issue, and it wouldn't have been of much consequence, as this is an issue likely to be decided by preferably the legislative branch, but potentially the judicial branch. Not the executive.

In the past couple of weeks, the Obama campaign has made some questionable moves, and as a result, his momentum is seeming to reverse. This is just one example of this. It was an unnecessary risk that wouldn't entail much, if any, reward had it been successfully employed.

The Blackest President

This is a funny story that I'm hoping isn't of consequence, because it would be quite disturbing if it was.

Call me crazy, but it certainly appears to me that Sen. Obama's skin tone is significantly darker in the Clinton campaign commercial. Watch it again and see if you agree.

Now, as most of us know, one of the ways in which to demonize a person of color is to make them appear darker than they are. By this twisted logic, somehow being more black makes you more threatening.

Of course it's wise to be skeptical of anything read at the Daily Kos, but I looked at actual debate video side-by-side to the Clinton ad, and the image of Obama is significantly darker.

The race-baiters will be quick to say that she's trying to somehow make him look "blacker" so he appears more threatening. However, I think it is a tactic to make him not looker "blacker" in the sense of pigment, but rather to convey a more ominous message related to his image.

The only real conclusion anyone can make of this is once a Clinton, always a Clinton. Maybe the wife of "the first black president" wants him to be the only black president.

Politics as Usual

First let me apologize for the lack of updates. I have three four-page papers due in Metaphysics tomorrow, so I've been working on those for the past couple of days. I also have a test Thursday in Intro to the Middle East, so I can't promise a lot more to come the next couple of days, sorry. I'll be doing extensive updates over Spring Break next week, though. So look forward to it. I can always take a little time out of my early morning to take another whack at Obama, though. Anyway.

As documented in my last post, my vendetta against Barack Obama knows no limitations. It's good to see the Main-Stream Media reporting on the NAFTA debacle, but now Barack is knee-deep in more shit.

Rezko is accused of using his position on two state boards in an extortion scheme that would enrich him and his co-conspirators, while also adding to Gov. Blagojevich's campaign coffers. He is charged with eight counts, including fraud, attempted extortion, money laundering and aiding bribery.

Like the first question on the NPR piece, my first thought was, "Who the hell is Tony Rezko?" Furthermore, what does he have to do with Obama?

Back when Obama was at Harvard Law School, Rezko offered him a job with his development company in Chicago. Obama declined. But the relationship grew while Obama worked as a Chicago community organizer and then for a small Chicago law firm. Obama's firm did legal work for some of Rezko's development companies. Obama himself billed five hours for work on behalf of one of Rezko's nonprofit partners in an inner-city redevelopment project.

When Obama first ran for the Illinois state senate in 1996, Rezko was one of his first campaign contributors. He has remained a significant contributor to and fundraiser for Obama's subsequent campaigns.

If Obama comes out and denounces Rezko, returns the money he donated, and cuts ties with him, this shouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, his reaction seems to be marked more by avoiding the question. Shame. Stuff like this and the NAFTA doublespeak should help people realize that Barack Obama isn't the Black Jesus, some political savior sent by God, or frankly even anything other than your avergae, run-of-the-mill, suspiciously well-connected American politician.

The Audacity of Doublespeak

Anyone who knows my views on Barack Obama knows I believe the man to appeal strongly to people's ethos, throwing their logic out the window. I also know Obama is a bleeding-heart liberal, something I think eludes many of his followers. Little did I know, I can now add "disingenuous" to the list of reasons I dislike Obama.

On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Obama's campaign called the Canadian government within the last month -- saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn't worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.

Turns out the man attempting to embody change in this election cycle is just a politician, identical to those he is trying to distinguish himself from, employing meaningless rhetoric to pander to certain interest groups in a hollow attempt to scrape together votes.

Furthermore, this highlights the impracticality of opting out of NAFTA. Saying you want to get out of our continental free trade agreement is going to appeal to jobless voters in places like Ohio, but as a national policy, it simply doesn't work. We live in a global economy, and some domestic industries have suffered as a result of this. However, I believe it is up to people who formerly worked in those industries to realize this, and work elsewhere. To try and preserve American industries, when they are obviously more efficiently run elsewhere, where more growth is possible, is a lost cause, and decremental to our national economy.