Gimmickry

Dale has given me permission to post while old C-SM is transitioning to new C-SM, which is a good thing, 'cuz I was going nuts with all that's going on -- leading off with gimmickry.

By now you know that Obama said McCain's call for more drilling is just a gimmick. I'll go this far: McCain's call for a $300 million prize for the perfect electric car battery is pure gimmickry and certainly should have been called as much by Obama. But Obama's a guy who loves to needlessly hand out government money, so he actually supports that lame-brained idea.

(Lame-brained you ask? Of course it is. If anyone invents the perfect electric car battery, the free market will reward him so generously that $300 million, impressive as that number is, will be chump change.)

Anyway, here's my question to Obama: If calling for the drilling of more oil is a gimmick, why are you not calling for the immediate drilling of less oil? Wouldn't that be un-gimmicky? If more oil won't drop prices, then less oil certainly should, at least at the Obama School of Leftist Economics, right?

C'mon, Big O! Do the right thing! Stand up tall in support of less drilling! Even better, make your announcement at a press conference in front of a gas station selling regular for $4.29 a gallon. That's the ticket!

Media Bias 2008

The campaign is officially on, and MSM coverage is officially favoring Obama. Media Bias 2008 will cover that bias all the way up to the election.

Items are listed from most recent to oldest; the numbering only reflects this and is not a ranking. Send Media Bias 2008 examples via "comments"' below, or to email2laer [@] yahoo [dot] com.

9. The End (Not Of Media Bias) Is Near!

In a truly awful piece by AP writers Alan Fram and Eileen Putnam titled Everything is Seemingly Spinning out of Control that wails about "wars without end" and "polar bears ... adrift," we see that all this ubber-angst is leading up to this:

The sense of helplessness is even reflected in this year's presidential election. Each contender offers a sense of order — and hope. Republican John McCain promises an experienced hand in a frightening time. Democrat Barack Obama promises bright and shiny change, and his large crowds believe his exhortation, "Yes, we can."

Do you get the sense that to AP, McCain is alone, without a supporter in sight, but the Mighty O is surrounded ... as Christ was ... by multitudes? McCain is for a mere "sense" of order, but large crowds believe Obama; he's bright and shiny! Yes, we can! Yes we can bias this election!

8. 100 Years of Bias

Ever since John McCain said in January it was all right with him if troops stayed in Iraq for 100 years as long as they weren't suffering casualties, the media have pandered to Dem operatives who equate this to "100 years of war." Now it's back with McCain's statement that it's "not important" when the troops come home.

For over-the-top misinterpretation of this statement look no further than that Pillar of Objectivity, MSNBC and Keith Olbermann. After giving the full quote to provide "full context," Olbermann said:

And there is the context of what Sen. McCain said. Well, not quite, Senator.

The full context is that the Iraq you see, is a figment of your imagination. This is not a war about "honor and victory," Sir. This is a war you, and the President you support and seek to succeed, conned this nation into.

Of course, Olbermann is a commentator and is welcome to dish out all the thick-headed bias he wants. Another way of saying that is this: Olbermann gets to say what others in the MSM want to say; otherwise they would see the correct context -- that it's good for American security to have troops overseas -- and not report this story at all.

7. GOP Self-Loathing

Eagle-eyed reader Elvis Julip spotted this item in the SacBee:

"Three passions seem to be dominant so far this year, and all offer advantages
to Obama: ending the Iraq war, restoring a sense of economic security and
ousting the Republican Party from the White House."

"Forgive me," Elvis writes, "if I don't quite believe that Republicans share that third passion on the level that the Sac Bee writer would have us believe."

6. Cunning With Cunningham

The LA Times was looking for some quotes to fill in the blanks on a story they wanted to write: That John McCain was going to have trouble with conservatives in the critical swing state of Ohio. Rather than talk to, say the chair of the Ohio Republican party, they did this:

If McCain tried to gather his volunteers in Ohio, "you could meet in a phone booth," said radio host Bill Cunningham, who attacks the Arizona senator regularly on his talk show. "There's no sense in this part of Ohio that John McCain is a conservative or that his election would have a material benefit to conservatism."

You remember Cunningham. He's the former warm-up speaker for McCain who got drubbed by the candidate for his vicious attacks on Clinton and Obama. When McCain apologized to the two Dem candidates, Cunningham went ballistic in a temper tantrum worthy of a four year old:

A conservative radio talk-show host said that "he's had it up to here" with Sen. John McCain after the GOP presidential candidate repudiated the commentator's remarks about Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at a campaign event.

"John McCain threw me under a bus -- under the 'Straight Talk Express,' " Bill Cunningham told CNN on Tuesday, referring to McCain's campaign bus. (CNN)

Want a negative story? Interview psycho-negative sources. It's five months before the election and no one knows how Ohio will go -- but it's not too early for the LAT to try to do its part.

5. Anger vs. Inexperience

On the surface, the Washington Post appears objective on two big questions of the campaign: McCain's age (29 hits on a WaPo content search) and Obama's experience (26 hits). But numbers can be deceiving, particularly since the McCain search turned up this dog: McCain, A Matter of Temperment.

It ran on page A1, and the Internet version rambles on for five clicks of tales (some tall) of McCain's "legendary" temper. McCain speechwriter Mark Salter said of the story, “In sum, this is one of the more shoddy examples of journalism I've ever encountered. But for the infamous [NYTimes] story, I'd say it was the worst smear job on McCain I'd ever seen.”

In contrast, WaPo offers up no A1 story on Obama's inexperience. The 26 hits are mostly on op/ed pieces, on McCain's statements about Obama, and WaPo blog posts. Even so, none rose higher than page A6.

4. Ignoring Rezko

Nexis, compiler extraordinaire of news stories in mostly major MSM outlets, conjured up 114 stories matching a "Rezko AND convicted" sort between the day the story broke, June 4, and the next day. I re-ran the sort for today's date and there were ... Ta Da! ... six, count 'em six, stories.

Imagine if the GOP nominee had a longstanding relationship with a major contributor who had just been convicted of 16 felony counts of, basically, taking money from the poor for his purposes. Do you think there just might have been more than six stories a couple days later?

3. Global Bias

AP had to go out of its way -- very far out of its way -- to tell us Obama is a "great man."

Indonesians were rooting for the man they consider to be a hometown hero. Obama lived in the predominantly Muslim nation from age 6 to 10 with his mother and Indonesian stepfather and was fondly remembered by former teachers and classmates.

"He was an average student, but very active," said Widianto Hendro Cahyono, 48, who was in the same third-grade class as Obama at SDN Menteng elementary school in Jakarta. "He would play ball during recess until he was dripping with sweat.

"I never imagined he would become a great man."

In Mexico City, hairdresser Susan Mendoza's eyes lit up when she learned Obama had clinched the nomination.

"Bush was for the elite. Obama is of the people," she said. (hat-tip: LGF)

Indonesia? Yeah, OK, we'll give you that. But Mexico? AP apparently didn't ask the Vietnamese community in Little Saigon, OC, what they think of McCain.

2. NYT Expose ... Or Not

The NY Times didn't have a problem running a smarmy and unprovable story about a supposed McCain affair with a lobbyist. No similar bag o' crapola hit piece has run in the NYT.

Women swoon over Obama, but apparently there's never been an allegation of drop-trou, no matter how specious, that has caught the NYT's attention. This fact is not bias per se -- but the fact that only one crummy secondary hit comes up up on an NYT search of "Obama William Ayres" sure is.

1. Votin' Racist

An AP story that moved right after the announcement that Obama had sealed the deal compared the candidates in a biased way:

_Will McCain be able to overcome the country's intense desire for change by separating himself from the unpopular Bush while sticking close on issues of war and taxes?

_Will Obama be able to overcome the country's unsavory history of slavery andlingering bigotry that deeply divides the public to be elected the first black president?

Think about it: Don't vote for McCain and you're anti-Bush (a popular sentiment). Don't vote for Obama and you're a racist (a not-so-popular attribute).

Sunday Scan

No Fireworks In Gualala

A couple weeks back, I wrote about a particularly worrisome matter of the Cal. Coastal Commission issuing a cease and desist order against a 4th of July fireworks show planned in the No. Cal town of Gualala. It is, I think, the foothold the Coastal Commission has been seeking in a larger effort to stop these patriotic displays all along the California Coast.

How crazy is that? This crazy: One of the Gualala Gaeans said in a comment on the post that the damage of a 15 minute fireworks show would be permanent and unmitigatable. My gosh, if the earth were really that fragile, if would have dissolved into dust long ago.

The Gualala Patriots Day Committee (the good guys) appealed the decision and lost, so there will be no fireworks show this year. But the fight goes on; the judge merely failed to overturn the cease and desist; he did not rule on the underlaying matter. Says the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing the Patriots Day group:

“The legal fight goes on against this abuse of power by the California Coastal Commission. Although the fireworks won’t happen this year, our lawsuit goes forward. We’ll be litigating to bring the fireworks back in future years – and to have the courts instruct the Coastal Commission on the proper limits of its power.”

For a PLF summary on the case, click here.

The Inevitable In Zimbabwe

The despotic leaders of the multitude of thug-ocracies of the world can breathe a sigh of relief -- the popular uprising against their role model hero, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, has been crushed.

This was a close one, with Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change actually winning a popular election. But Mugabe froze the election results and started a campaign of intimidation ... which may be too faint a word. Remember what Mugabe's supporters did to the wife of Patson Chipiro, a MDC regional leader?

They grabbed Mrs Chipiro and chopped off one of her hands and both her feet. Then they threw her into her hut, locked the door and threw a petrol bomb through the window. (BBC)

Preceding the MDC announcement it was not going to participate in the new election was this, also from BBC:

On Sunday, the MDC was due to stage a rally in Harare - the highlight of the campaign.

But supporters of Mr Mugabe's Zanu-PF occupied the stadium venue and roads leading up to it.

Witnesses reported seeing hundreds of youths around the venue wielding sticks, some chanting slogans, and others circling the stadium crammed onto the backs of trucks.

Some set upon opposition activists, leaving a number badly injured, the MDC said.

It said African election monitors were also chased away from the rally site.

Sounds like exactly the sort of election Jimmy Carter would deem to be fair.

Another Reason To Vote For McCain

Buried deep in a WaPo story on hate groups and rising racism that's very short on stats and figures and verrrry loooong on opinion, we find this:

"One person put it this way: Obama for president paves the way for David Duke as president," said Duke, who ran for president in 1988, received less than 1 percent of the vote and has since spent much of his time in Europe. "This is finally going to make whites begin to realize it's a necessity to stick up for their own heritage, and that's going to make them turn to people like me. We're the next logical step."

Keep Duke in Europe! Vote McCain!

Alternative Energy Dreamin'

There's another horse in the alternative energy race ... but this one seems unlikely to generate even one horsepower. But what the heck! Don't stop believin', hold on to that feelin':

Scientists from Europe’s Atomic Energy Commission, in Grenoble, France, have shown that vibrations from raindrops landing on a certain type of plastic can generate enough energy to operate some low-power wireless sensors, like battery-powered outdoor thermometers.

Leonardo diCaprio, take note!

Plenty Magazine offers an "In Depth" feature on the new technology, gushing about how it could be used to power climate sensing devices that now need batteries, so that we get a continuous flow of data to feed into the electricity sucking beasts we call computers.

Of course, rain drop power comes with that bane of all alternative energy: a dearth of economic viability. It takes Penty to the last paragraph to mention this tidbit: The material used to generate raindrop power costs $460 for 1 kilogram, and given the milliwatts produced, a bunch of kilograms will be required. Batteries, on the other hand, cost a buck.

Undaunted, the article ends:

Who knows, April showers may soon bring power.

Of course, not enough power to offset the solar power that's not being generated due to the rain.

Very nice art: Josh Cochran

Extreme Climate Change

NOAA (named, perhaps, for that ark chap, since the oceans are going to flood us all) has released its newest climate change report, Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate. The resulting bad reporting can perhaps be best summarized by two quick cuts.

First, the pocket liner set got their first impression of the report from this Science Digest intro:

Among the major findings reported in this assessment are that droughts, heavy downpours, excessive heat, and intense hurricanes are likely to become more commonplace as humans continue to increase the atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

While the mainstream tuned into this Digg summary ...

New report highlights the likely changes in extreme weather and climate conditions under ongoing climate change.

... which in turn generated comments like:

Report: Turning on lamp will light up room.
Report: Pissing into wind will get you wet.
Report: Falling linked to failure to stand upright.

How many of these stories do we need to read before people start seeing this as completely obvious?!

Well, of course, it's just not that obvious. ICECAP gives us this summary by Roger Pielke Jr., who just happens to believe in anthropogenic global warming:

The report contains several remarkable conclusions, that somehow did not seem to make it into the official press release. They include: over the long-term U.S. hurricane landfalls have been declining, nationwide there have been no long-term increases in drought, despite increases in some measures of precipitation, there have not been corresponding increases in peak streamflows, there have been no observed changes in the occurrence of tornadoes or thunderstorms, there have been no long-term increases in strong East Coast winter storms (ECWS), called Nor’easters, there are no long-term trends in either heat waves or cold spells, though there are trends within shorter time periods in the overall record.

Pshaw. What's the fun in reporting boring ol' stuff like that?

Seismic Mitigation As Art

This amazing piece of industrial art is actually the tuned mass damper at the top of Taipei 101, for now the planet's tallest completed skyscraper.

The 728-ton steel ball is so massive it couldn't be lifted into location; rather, it had to be assembled in a cavern carved out of four stories at the top of the tower. Why, you might well ask, put a 728-ton ball at the top of the building?

The simple answer is that Taipei 101 stands just 800 feet from an earthquake fault. More specific: The ball swings counter to motion caused by wind or earth movement, dampening sway.

Deputy Dog, an architecture blog, has a short story on the mass damper, but what really attracts is the video that was shot on May 12, when shocks from China's massive earthquake hit the tower. Tourists in the building actually flocked up to the viewing area for the damper to see it in action.



Don't you just love human ingenuity?

Can You Say "Semper Cheese?"


If you don't understand this, says Blackfive, you've never met a Marine.

Setting Up A Winning GOP Campaign Strategy

In his Saturday address, President Bush handed McCain the campaign theme most likely to keep the White House in Republican hands:

The fundamental problem behind high gas prices is that the supply of oil has not kept up with the rising demand across the world. One obvious solution is for America to increase our domestic oil production. So my Administration has repeatedly called on Congress to open access to new oil exploration here in the United States. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal. Now Americans are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction.

Delivering the Dem response to the prez's radio address was Nick Rahall, chair of the Natural Resources Committee, which is the Senatorial power broker in this debate. His response:

This week, President Bush and his Republicans allies rallied behind the oil industry's political agenda once again and advocated opening more of America's federal land, including coastal areas, to drilling. This proposal will not bring the type of relief Americans deserve at the pump.

So we're told that supply and demand for some mysterious reason won't work with petroleum. Yet we're told that this same supply and demand does work with the cornerstone of the Dems' horse in the energy race, alternative fuels: We'll increase supply of alternative fuels and the price of energy will drop.

Everything the enviros have said since gas prices started spiking -- heck, everything they've ever said about energy pricing -- ignores supply and demand in favor of government controls through incentives, punishments,cap and trade programs and government take-over. It's not surprising since its basic socialism.

Also inherent in Rahall's response is a problem over the definition of federal lands. He criticizes Bush for calling for "opening more" federal land (and seas) for resource development. The name of Rahall's committee is "Resources," a word the Dems and their green special interest supporters have come to define as "something that should not be touched," but traditionally means "a source of supply, support or wealth."

What exactly is this "America's federal land" Rehall's talking about? The Bureau of Land Management has under its jurisdiction 258 million surface acres and 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estates. The surface holdings represent about 13 percent of all the US, and BLM states its purpose as management first and conservation second. The land it manages represents just 40 percent of all land owned by the Federal government.

And it's profitable stuff:

The public lands provide significant economic benefits to the Nation and to states and counties where these lands are located. Revenues generated from public lands make BLM one of the top revenue-generating agencies in the Federal government. In 2007, for instance, BLM’s onshore mineral leasing activities will generate an estimated $4.5 billion in receipts from royalties, bonuses, and rentals that are collected by the Minerals Management Service. Approximately half of these revenues will be returned to the States where the mineral leasing occurred.

These are the lands Bush -- and most of the rest of us -- are interested in opening up, which is the right thing to do, since it's the federal land purposed for productivity. The other federally owned land includes military bases, prisons, nuke storage sites, Washington DC -- and land owned and managed by the Department of Interior's wildlife guys for the Dem definition of "natural resources" -- critters and plants that just could not survive without our loving protection.

But to Rahall and the special interests he serves (Earth First!, the Center for Biological Depravity ... oops, Diversity, etc.), all federal land should be treated as this subset of DOI-managed land: preserved for critters and none of it leased for resources. It doesn't matter if the impact of production on land is large (as in oil shale) or small (as in drilling); no level of impact to Gaea is allowable.

You can't blame Rahall and the Greenies for the current energy situation; you can only blame them for part of it. How much is a matter of debate; they would say the impact of their anti-petroleum, anti-nuclear position is minimal, and that it would be less then minimal if only we would get our hearts behind alternative energy.

But our hearts have been behind alternative energy since the gas shortages of the 1970s. Billions of dollars are going into alternative energy and we have little to show for it beyond higher food prices thanks to ethanol production.

McCain, like all savvy politicians is a proponent of alternative energy -- after all he can read polls that say 98% (!) of usbelieve a goal of 25% alternative energy sources by 2025 is a good one. (Of course, the poll question didn't attach a cost to that effort or say reaching the goal might cause some discomfort and displacement.) But he can also read the frustration of voters who are paying over $4 per gallon of gas, and seeing the price raise every week, so he changed his position on drilling. Albeit, not far enough, since he's still stuck in a no position on ANWR, but unlike the Dems, he changed.

And the left pounced, with the Dem party strutting and crowing about McCain's Offshore Drilling Flip-Flop: "McCain caves, once again, to the special interest." We've been through the special interest allegation already, but in this particular case, the special interest isn't the dreaded "Texas oil," which was guilty of the great sin of helping make America the most powerful, wealthiest, comfortable nation on earth, it's the people at the pump.

With "flip-flop," the Dems are trying to paint McCain with a Kerry brush, but they fail. McCain is looking at an economic policy, seeing a changed global condition brought about by soaring demand and stifled production and refining capacity (see this lengthy PowerPoint for a good explanation of all that), and a futures market that's betting that price increases will continue, and he simply deduced that changed circumstances support changed policy.

Kerry, on the other hand, was looking at an Iraq where nothing was changing -- it was early in the war, instable and violent, and potentially could get worse or could get better. What was changing was not the situation, but the power and funding capacity of the anti-war faction of the Dem party. McCain saw a changed world and changed his policy. Kerry saw a changed Dem power elite and changed his.

It boils down to this: $4 gas gives the GOP a glimmer of hope in November because we have the right policy and, finally, a candidate who has signaled that he's with us on that policy. The Dems have a candidate who appears not to care about the plight of the people; he'll put the supposed plight of the polar bear first.

Congress, thanks to Bush's challenge to open up more land for drilling, needs to deal with this. My guess: The Dems will go on August recess without acting. McCain better be putting on his pouncing shoes.

Barack, Out Of Buses, Opts For Trucks

Apparently having depleted his entire fleet of buses under which he's thrown his church, his grandmother, his friends and his commitments, Barack Obama has rustled up a fleet of trucks. As David Brooks tells us in today's NYT:

And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck.

What do you call a man who so casually breaks his promises in order to serve his impossibly pushy ambitions? A liar? An immoral sack of manure? A danger to all mankind? An old school, smarmy politician who's duped millions of naive Dems into thinking he stands for something new and better?

Fortunately for the wily liar, there is no subject more boring and unimportant to the American mainstream electorate than campaign reform, so today's outrage will come and go without so much as a furled brow among the duped Dems.

Unfortunately for John McCain, he's the father of this campaign reform mess, and he's shown sufficient honor to stubbornly stick to his word. Imagine that. From a politician!

Reading Charles Krauthammer this a.m., I came across an Obama quote that looks positively ridiculous in light of his tectonic shift on campaign reform. Obama is talking about McCain's reversal on offshore drilling:

"His decision to completely change his position" to one that would please the oil industry is "the same Washington politics that has prevented us from achieving energy independence for decades."

Besides being wrong on oil and wrong on economics, the quote is a harsh mirror held up to Obama's ear-y face.

But what the heck, his flip-flop on financing could give Obama a three-to-one spending advantage over McCain. To put that in perspective, sports fans, here's gleeful Dem operative Chris Lehane:

"It'll be like George Steinbrenner's Yankees in the '90s — an All-Star at every position — against the '90s Kansas City Royals, barely able to meet their payroll." (ABC)

Time to take out your wallets, my friends. We've got payroll to meet.

No Iraqi Endorsement For Obama (Natch!)

"The Iraqis are really fearful about some of the positions the Democratic Party has adopted. If the Democrats win, they will be withdrawing their forces in a very rapid manner. Are we going to tell [Iraqis] that the game is over? That the Americans are pulling out?"
-- Sheik Ahmed Abu Rishah, Iraqi Awakening Movement

Who knows more about the possible effects of Obama's cut-and-run promises for Iraq: Dem campaign operatives or Iraqi leaders?

Barack Obama isn't available to answer this question because he "was unable" to meet with a group of visiting Iraqi leaders last week. According to Bret Stevens in WSJ, the leaders, who were able to meet with McCain, included Abu Rishah, Mamoun Sami Rashid al-Alawi, the governor of Anbar province, and Hussein Ali al-Shalan, a Shiite from Diwaniyah.

Says al-Alawi of that aborted Obama meeting and their visit to Walter Reed:

The governor tells a moving story about their visit to Walter Reed hospital, where they were surprised to find smiles on the faces of GIs who had lost limbs. "The smile is because they feel they have accomplished something for the American people."

But the Iraqis came away with a different impression in Chicago, where they had hoped to meet with Mr. Obama but ended up talking to a staff aide. "We noticed there was a concentration on the negatives," the governor recalls. "The Democrat kept saying that Americans have committed a lot of mistakes. Yes, that's true, but why don't you concentrate on what the Americans have achieved in Iraq?"

The visitors were even more flabbergasted -- Sunni and Shi'ia alike -- by Obama's willingness to negotiate with their bloodthirsty neighbors to the east, asking Stevens, "Do you Americans forget what the Iranians did to your embassy? Don't you know that Ahmadinejad was one of [the hostage takers]?"

Of course we remember. Of course we know. But it seems to have slipped Obama's mind, and in continuing his refusal to honestly assess Iraq, our visiting Iraqi friends weren't able to remind him.

Drilling Through Obama's Rhetoric

Obama looks at oil as foreign policy:

"Oil money pays for the bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut, and the bombast of dictators from Caracas to Tehran." (WaPo)

What a bizarre ... no, what a leftist ... view. Commerce is evil. Big commerce is big evil.

The Dem presumptive also refers to oil drilling as "a failed policy." Failed? Look at what oil drilling has accomplished for our world. It changed us from a globe of far-flung, isolated peoples to a global community. It gave us new medicines and materials that have improved our lives. It made it possible to get to the hospital by ambulance or helicopter instead of horse and carriage. It fuels our economy, creating jobs and wealth.

One drawback: It makes it possible for one Barack Obama to campaign relentlessly across our very large nation.

But to him, oil and drilling for oil are nothing more than a failed policy -- even though all the alternative energy forms, that have been spouted relentlessly since the 1970s, have failed to deliver even five percent of our national energy needs.

Not only does Obama support failed energy sources, he supports failed methods for making alternative energy just energy. His plan is to use money raised through an auction of greenhouse-gas emissions credits (i.e., an energy tax) to bolster research and development projects, which have been bolstered for three decades now with little to show for it.

Meanwhile, he wants to force alternative energy into the economy by imposing requirements on how much renewable energy public utilities would have to buy. Ve have ways ov making you buy! Never mind whether its available, never mind whether its cost effective. What people have to pay for energy is of no concern to Mr. Elite, because it's a hidden tax.

Meanwhile, McCain's laying out an energy policy with some positive energy behind it: Drill now in America. Go nuclear. Conserve. Use alternate fuels. This is a sound and diverse plan that actually would cause America to be less dependent on foreign oil

Drill now? Obama actually said that there's no point in drilling now because it'll be ten years until offshore oil wells deliver. Clinton said the same thing about drilling for ANWR oil -- ten years ago. If he had been a visionary instead of reflexively pushing alternative fuels, ANWR oil would be moderating prices today. Alternative fuels certainly aren't.

Of course, Obama's not alone in calling oil drilling "failed policy." Here's the DNC:

The Democratic National Committee responded that Mr. McCain’s speech “will cave in to his friends in the oil and gas industry’’ and that he would be offering “more of the same failed Bush policies that have driven energy prices through the roof.’’ (NYT)

Note to Dems: Fuel prices under Bush in 2001 were the same as they were in 1995. After Sept. 11, they started a slow climb -- but they didn't start soaring until the Dems took over Congress in 2006.

Obama Largely To Blame For SCOTUS Guantanamo Ruling

John McCain's promise to close Guantanamo is one strike against him in my playbook, but I can't find a quarrel with his position on yesterday's awful Supreme Court decision extending habeas corpus to terrorist foreign combatants.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Friday sharply denounced a Supreme Court decision that gave suspected terrorist detainees a right to seek their release in federal courts.

"I think it's one of the worst decisions in history," McCain said. "It opens up a whole new chapter and interpretation of our constitution." ...

McCain ... attacked the decision, saying the law he helped write "made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, they are not citizens, they do not have the rights of citizens."

He might have thought about that before calling for the closing of the prison, so his slam of the SCOTUS decision rings a bit hollow. But in this political year, I'll take it gladly -- especially when compared to Obama's reaction.

Of course, I haven't found a reaction from Obama, which isn't that surprising because he is probably considering his options ... none of them too attractive ... before getting someone to write words for him to deliver smoothly from his teleprompter.

Here's the cause of his troubles:

Lawyers for Gitmo detainees endorse Obama

(January 28, 2008) -- More than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees today endorsed Illinois Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid.

The attorneys said in a joint statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration's detention policies in the war on terrorism and thereby to "restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community." The attorneys are representing the detainees in habeas corpus lawsuits, which are efforts to get individual hearings before federal judges in order to challenge the basis for their indefinite imprisonment without trial.

The attorneys praised Obama for being a leader in an unsuccessful fight in the fall of 2006 to block Congress from enacting a law stripping courts of jurisdiction to hear Guantanamo detainee lawsuits. The constitutionality of that law, which was part of the Military Commissions Act, is now being challenged before the Supreme Court in one of the most closely-watched cases this term.

"When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration's bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us," they wrote. "Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. ... Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates."

(Read the whole article here.)

We know how that turned out, so we can thank Obama for the mess the five Sept. 10-think judges on the SCOTUS have put us in.

We know what Obama is feeling about the decision: Elation. He worked hard to achieve giving enemy combatants the opportunity to use our courts as a weapon of war -- a right we did not extend to the thousands of Nazi prisoners of war who were on our land, not offshore in Cuba. But Obama's work was in the fall of '06 -- basically a decade or so ago in Obama Time. Now that he's a general election candidate, he'll have to figure out how to fake a different, less hardcore hard-left response to use when he's asked for a response to the decision.

One thing is for certain: He will work hard to separate himself from the 80 volunteer Guantanamo lawyers. The bodies on the other side of the separated from Obama gap are becoming legion; I wonder if there's room for 80 more.

Circumscribing The Debate

The NYT has one heck of a hand-wringer this a.m., searching its navel and the navel of other MSM news purveyors for any speck of sexism in their coverage of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Leading the charge is Katie Couric. Here's the clip:


And what the NYT had to say about it, ignoring her statement that if similar "iron my shirt" issues were tossed Obama's way, it would have been front-page news:

Taking aim from the inside, though, was Ms. Couric, who herself has faced harsh criticism as the first woman to be the solo anchor of an evening news broadcast. Ms. Couric posted a video on the CBS Web site on Wednesday about the coverage of Mrs. Clinton.

“Like her or not, one of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued — and accepted — role of sexism in American life, particularly in the media,” Ms. Couric said.

She went on to lament the silence of those who did not speak up against it.

Odd that the NYT didn't characterize the Couric clip a bit more accurately and dig into it some -- like her reference to a free market entrepreneur's creation of a Hillary nutcracker as somehow being indicative of sexist bias in MSM coverage. Instead, they dredged up these examples of horrific sexism directed at Mrs. Clinton:

• Chris Matthews called her a she-devil.
  
  
• MSNBC panelist Mike Barnicle said Clinton was “looking like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court.”
  
  
• Also on MSNBC, Carson Tucker said, "When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.”
  
  
• The NYT was guilty of writing about Hil's "cackle."
  
  
• Ken Rudin of NPR apologized after the fact for comparing Hil to Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction: “She’s going to keep coming back, and they’re not going to stop her."

Awful, awful stuff. Note that all of it came from decidedly left-tilting outlets. Let's take them one by one.

• Perhaps if Matthews had just called her a devil, he would have escaped criticism. You know, like "actresses" are just "actors" today.
  
  
• Barnicle's comment is hardly original; there's polling data that shows Hillary reminds many men of their first wife. Polling data are there to be reported. Ignoring them because it dealt with a candidate's sex would be just as sexist, would it not?
  
  
• Tucker's comment about crossing legs is in accord with Hil's campaign strategy of not running as a woman ... which leaves the alternative of running as a man. And any woman that behaves like a man understandably makes men nervous.
  
  
• And there's been plenty of coverage of Obama's ears and McCain's age, so please, no harpie screeches about Hil's cackle. Oops.
  
  
• Rudin, it turns out, was right. She still has not conceded defeat or left the race.
  

Now, all this bitching and endless nagging about sexism (heh) is all set-up, of course. The real game is not whether Hillary was treated with sexist disregard, but rather, it is a game of using allegations of sexism against Hillary to prime the media to be very, very careful in any criticism of Obama. After all, if sexism is a sin in America, racism is a mortal sin.

You can see Howard Dean hard at work priming this message in his comments about the coverage of Hillary:

“The media took a very sexist approach to Senator Clinton’s campaign,” Mr. Dean said in a recent interview.

“It’s pretty appalling,” he said, adding that the issue resonates because Mrs. Clinton “got treated the way a lot of women got treated their whole lives.”

Mr. Dean and others are now calling for a “national discussion” of sexism.

Obama, in dealing with the Wright blow-up, called for a "national discussion" of racism; Dean did not borrow the term by accident. And if the media's treatment of Hillary is appalling and resonates because it reflects how a lot of women are treated, then any criticism at all of Obama will remind all blacks -- men and women -- of negative ways they've been treated and be even more appalling.

In other words, it's now officially hands off Obama time. This won't make much difference to the average American, as the media has kept its hands pretty well off Obama all along. It will make a profound difference to GOP candidates, speechwriters and campaign chiefs, and to reporters, editorial cartoonists and editorial writers. The former know they are being watched and offenses will be dealt with very, very harshly by the latter.

Missing from this discussion is the Dems' recent sump-diving into ageism with McCain. To twist beyond recognition his comments about the strategic benefits of having an ongoing military presence in Iraq into an attack on McCain's capabilities because he is old must remind many American men and women in their 70s and older of the ways they are discriminated against and belittled ... but where are the calls for a national dialog on that?

Ooops! They're Lying Again

Even at the supposedly sophisticated Talking Points Memo, McCain-bashing takes precedence over truth. I'll remake the TPM page in question for you here:

John McCain: I am Viral Video!

McCain: Bringing Troops Home from Iraq "Not Too Important" ...

Get a good look. Within a day or so he won't have said it.

Just as with the "100 years war" quote, the Left shamelessly miscasts this clip to pollute the public discourse. In this clip, McCain makes it extremely clear exactly what he means about a long-term presence in Iraq. Right after "not too important" he says:

What's important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany -- that's all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw ....

If this is virally offensive, we have to ask why. The only credible answer is this: The Democratic party, as represented by TPM -- the primary daily read of many, many mainstream Dems -- is now a party of complete isolationism, the party that would close all our overseas bases and huddle behind our borders, and the party of complete anti-militarism that sees no use whatsoever for military forces, either to win the peace or maintain it.

In other words, they are the party that embraces defeat.

Sunday Scan

Triple Crown

Jockey Kent Desormeaux summed up yesterday's Belmont Stakes pretty well, saying of Triple Crown contender Big Brown, "I had no horse." Big Brown finished a distant, distant last, and another year goes by without a Triple Crown winner.

I didn't even watch the race because I've soured on all forms of gambling, but it reminded me of 1977 and Triple Crown winner Seattle Slew, who I saw very up-close at the Kentucky Derby.

The not so incredible ex-wife was a photographer at the Louisville Courier Journal and I was her Derby photo assistant. She buried an auto-drive Nikon so the lens was at dirt level under the rail about 10 yards past the finish line. She focused it on the finish line, and handed me a cable remote.

"Push it when they reach the last pole before the finish and hold it down until the last horse is past you," she said. And that's what I did.

As the pack tore past me, I heard the jockeys yelling and the leather creaking and the whips slapping, I felt a hot rush of air, and was spattered with horse sweat. It was one of the most intense experiences of my life. After they blew past, I let the shutter button go and remembered to start breathing again.

In the process, I took an image of Seattle Slew crossing the finish line, all four feet in the air. It became somewhat famous; in fact, when a commemorative plate company selected one image of Seattle Slew for a series of plates on Triple Crown winners, they selected my Derby picture. Here it is:

I can't claim it as mine; it's credited to my ex-wife. But it's a heck of a lot better than the crummy one of the Belmont at the top of the post, isn't it?

Those Racist Clintons

"Sometimes your opponent just runs a good campaign," lamented Hillary's campaign chief Mark Penn in an NYT op/ed today.

I thought you paid geniuses like Penn millions of dollars, as Hillary did, so that your candidate would run a better campaign.

Penn raises many excuses for Hillary's failure, boiling it down mostly to money -- another responsibility of the campaign chief -- but the most interesting paragraph in the piece is this one:

The Clintons have spent their lives fighting as much as any leaders in their generation for greater equality across racial and gender lines. I believe nothing they said was ever intended to divide the country by race. Any suggestion to the contrary was perhaps the greatest injustice done to them in this campaign.

All in all, I have to agree with him, even though I can't stand it, and even with the famous Bill-ism about the only reason why Obama is running a fairy-tale campaign is because he's black, and the famously misinterpreted Hil-ism about Bobby Kennedy's assassination.

Back in February, I wrote a post titled In A PC Nation, How Will The GOP Run? that raised the issue of hyper-sensitivity on race issues:

Even if there were a line fine enough to appease the keepers of political correctness in the black, feminist and media communities, and there's not, the GOP will be charged with crossing it. There is no way the GOP can get to November without being called every "ist" in the book.

Still true, more true, today. As it turns out, even the Clintons couldn't pass this test in the face of the Obamaniacs who are found in high positions in the media and the DNC. The challenge for that old white guy with his blond cutie-pie of a wife has not gotten any easier.

China, The Nation That Keeps On Giving

Toys with lead paint, tainted dog food, and of course who can forget bird flu? China is such a generous nation! So giving! And since bird flu was such a hit last time around, it's now time for bird flu redux:

HONG KONG (WSJ) -- Hong Kong authorities slaughtered 2,700 birds and banned live poultry imports from mainland China for up to 21 days, after a routine inspection Saturday found chickens in one of the city's poultry markets infected with the dangerous H5N1 bird-flu virus.

While there's little immediate threat to humans from the infected birds, the discovery revives fears that the disease could still be a problem with poultry flocks in southern China -- although it isn't yet clear whether the infected birds came from local or mainland Chinese farms."

And what does the generous, giving People's Republic have to say about all this? Ever the humble gift-giver, they deferred:

An official with the General Administration of Quality, Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine said the agency needed to consider questions about the matter before responding.

Can you say "chicken?"

Those Pesky Thermometers

Yesterday I wrote about NASA cooking the books on its US temperature data, a story Warmie cultists would no doubt reject as tales of denial by Warmie heretics. Well, if they had pipes and if they burned those little bowls of carbon-based plant material, I'd tell them to put this in their pipes and smoke it:

A perfect illustration is found when comparing the USHCN (U.S. Historical Climatology Network) temperature records from Central Park in New York City to those taken a mere 55 miles away at West Point. Readings in Central Park have been regularly measured since 1835 when the city's population had just surpassed 200,000. Today, surrounded by a metropolis of eight million people filled with some of the world's tallest buildings, a massive underground subway system, an extensive sewer system, power generation facilities, and millions of cars, buses, and taxis, the Central Park temperatures have been greatly altered by urbanization. And, as one might expect, the Central Park historical temperature plot illustrates an incredible warming increase of nearly 4øF.

The West Point readings have also been meticulously maintained since 1835, but the environment surrounding the thermometer shelter has experienced significantly less manmade interference then the one in Central Park. The West Point readings illustrate a significantly lower warming increase of only about 0.6øF over the same 170-year period. This is remarkable given that the year 1835 is considered to be the last gasp of the Little Ice Age -- a significant period of global cooling that stretched back several hundred years.

Cries of out of control global warming become more dubious when one looks at the hottest decade in modern history, the 1930s. The summer of 1930 marked the beginning of the longest drought of the 20th Century. From June 1 to August 3, Washington, D.C. experienced twenty-one days of high temperatures of at least 100ø. During that record-shattering heat wave, there were maximum temperatures set on nine different days that remain unbroken more than three-quarters-of-a-century later. (emphasis added; source)

How long can the global warming myth stand up to the temperature facts? It's an unanswerable question because global warming is the science of hysterics and hypnotism, and is therefore outside the realm of rational deduction.

hat-tip: Greenie Watch

Forever Reuters

No one can slip subjectivity into journalistic objectivity like Reuters. Here they are again, reporting on the meeting of G8 energy chiefs in Japan:

Japan, the United States, China, India and South Korea -- who together guzzle nearly half the world's oil -- said that they had agreed on the need for greater transparency in energy markets and more investment by consumers and producers both, while stopping short of calling on OPEC to pump more crude today. (source)

"Guzzle" is defined as "to drink especially liquor greedily, continually, or habitually." The U.S. and Japan should not be included with the guzzlers; we are more and more merely consumers. Greed simply isn't a part of our oil consumption; efficient output is. We consume ever more efficiently, investing billions in ways to make our automotive fleet, our homes and our industrial operations more efficient.

An objective Reuters (oxymoron) would have used the word consume. If it wants to look for oil-guzzling whipping boys, it should have stopped the list at China and Inda, which have put economic growth far ahead of environmental protection, and have put the acquisition of oil ahead of the efficient consumption of oil. In fact, both countries still subsidize the price of fuel to their populations, and refused reasoned calls to stop the practice in the name of greater fuel conservation.

Excitable Electrons

Confession time: I never understood this Mohamed ElBardei guy, and could no see the top UN nuke monitoring guy as a Nobel Prize winner than ... say ... Al Gore.

His mini-interview in Spiegel (the full interview publishes on Tuesday) gives me no further insights.

On Iran:

"The readiness on Iran's side to cooperate leaves a lot to be desired," he said. "We have pressing questions." Iran's leadership, he said, is sending "a message to the entire world: We can build a bomb in relatively short time."

On Syria:

But the general director of the International Atomic Energy Agency also said he expected "absolute transparency" from Syria.

On stopping proliferation by military action:

"With unilateral military actions, countries are undermining international agreements, and we are at a historic turning point."

What's difference between Iran and Syria might explain why ElBardei expects complete transparency from Syria, but not Iran? The only thing that comes to my mind is that there's been military action against Syria's nukes but not Iran's.

Hyper-Hysteria

Fear is rising with a bullet on the list of global motivators. Plastic baby bottles, genetically engineered food, cell phones ... all feed the hysteria machine, ultimately producing stories like this:

South Korean politics are on the brink of meltdown after spiralling public hysteria over “mad cow” disease in American beef unleashed a weekend of mass protests and pitched battles between demonstrators and riot police.

Police vehicles were today attacked by angry mobs armed with sticks and police lines were reportedly charged after the 40,000-strong crowd of peaceful protesters thinned-out to leave a smaller group of activists.

With the violence threatening to continue for another week, and the calls for his resignation being screamed by students on the streets of Seoul, President Lee Myung Bak now faces a series of potentially crippling departures from his immediate circle of allies. (Times of London)

How many recent cases of BSE have there been in the US? One.

How many recent cases of BSE in the US were discovered before the cow was slaughtered for beef? One.

How many humans have been infected from BSE in US beef? None.

Frankly, being in that crowd of angry Koreans looks far more dangerous to one's health than eating U.S. beef.

Step On It Or Shoot It?

"Do I step on it or shoot it?" That was my first response to seeing a gargantuan Hawaiian cockroach. I had a similar response to day when reading the latest from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene.

"Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started." (source)

"Do I step on him or shoot him?" The thought crossed your mind, too, didn't it? Or did you think, as Obama does, "Do I talk to him in Washington or do I talk to him in Tehran?"

What is there to say to someone like this, especially when he also used the occasion -- the 19th anniversary of Ayatollah Khomeini's welcome in Hell -- to once again share his apocalyptic vision that tyranny in the world (that would be "us") will be abolished by the return to earth of the Mahdi, the 12th imam. Maybe it would go something like this:

Obama: Would you promise, please, that your nuclear program will be peaceful, sir?

Mah- I'm in the -moud for Jew-icide Ahmadinejad (rhymes with "McCain got beat by this young rad?!"): The Mahdi is coming! The Mahdi is coming! Death to America! Death to Israel!

Obama: Well, that sounds just awful. Do you think you could put it off at least until I'm out of office?

Oh boy. McCain 2008, eh?

The Danish Perspective

This email is making the rounds, perportedly from a very American-thinking Danish friend:

We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an
election.

On one side, you have a b!tch who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer, and a
lawyer who is married to a b!tch who is a lawyer.

On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a huge
chest who owns a beer distributorship.

Is there a contest here?

Unfortunately, there is.

McCain Won't Stop Using "Islamic Terrorist"

Subtract "Islamic" from "terrorism" and what do you get?

The hundred-plus attacks by the Tamil Tigers and a couple Basque separatist bombs. That's pretty much it. All the rest of terrorism in the modern era is Islamic -- or Islamist -- terror, but that doesn't stop so-called "moderate Muslims" from trying to force a language change on all of us who see jihad for what it is:

A coalition of American Muslim groups is demanding that Sen. John McCain stop using the adjective "Islamic" to describe terrorists and extremist enemies of the United States.

Muneer Fareed, who heads the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), told The Washington Times that his group is beginning a campaign to persuade Mr. McCain to rephrase his descriptions of the enemy.

"We've tried to contact his office, contact his spokesperson to have them rethink word usage that is more acceptable to the Muslim community," Mr. Fareed said. "If it's not our intent to paint everyone with the same brush, then certainly we should think seriously about just characterizing them as criminals, because that is what they are." (Washington Times)

Criminals? Criminals are people who perpetrate crimes -- usually very small crimes that don't result in deaths -- for the purpose of monetary gain. Islamic terror fails to comply with that common definition.

Conversely, when I think of "religious fanatic," I think of someone who's no earthly good because their head's in heaven. This mindset typically has no violence attached to it; rather, it has an over-abundance of religious enthusiasm. What harm it causes is typically within the family, and is psychological, not physical.

But Islam has managed to bring the two together under its jihad-tent, creating religious fanatic criminals who use the actual words of the Qu'ran to justify heinous attacks on innocents.

Besides, McCain is hardly painting everyone with the same brush. He says "Islamic terrorists," which is different from "Islamic peaceniks," "Islamic supporters of Israel's right to exist," "Islamic counter-terrorists," "Islamic people who think it's OK for the West to publish Mohammed cartoons," and other pretty much non-existent Muslims. And yes, it's also different from "Islamic folk who go to mosque and raise their kids and don't want a part of all this political mess."

To his credit, McCain is sticking to his guns:

An aide to Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee who is counting on his pro-Iraq war stance to attract conservative voters, said the senator from Arizona will not drop the word.

Steve Schmidt, a former Bush White House aide who is now a McCain media strategist, told The Times that the use of the word is appropriate and that the candidate will continue to define the enemy that way.

"Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda represent a perverted strain of Islam at odds with the great many peaceful Muslims who practice their great faith peacefully," Mr. Schmidt said. "But the reality is, the hateful ideology which underpins bin Ladenism is properly described as radical Islamic extremism. Senator McCain refers to it that way because that is what it is."

It makes more sense, much, much more sense, for us to call on Obama and Clinton to start addressing Islamic terror than it does for McCain to stop using the phrase. To listen to the Dem candidates and debates, terror just isn't an issue, which may be the way Muneer Fareed and ISNA would like it, but if they really want to make terror a non-issue, they should focus on their religion's sicknesses, not McCain's statements.

Sunday Scan

Dith Pram, Journo-Hero, Dies

The world would have learned what Pol Pot did in Cambodia -- killing 2 million of its 7 million people -- without Dith Pran, but the former NYT translator carried the story to the world so effectively that it's hard to imagine the story without him.

Dith (Cambodians do last names first) created the term "killing fields" as he survived the horror for five years, and brought us story through The Killing Fields. He survived Pol Pot, but not pancreatic cancer, and there's a loving obit in the NYT, where he became a photographer.

There's a quote in the AP story on Dith that I really liked. It didn't make the NYT story; I think you'll understand why:

He was "the most patriotic American photographer I've ever met, always talking about how he loves America," said Associated Press photographer Paul Sakuma, who knew Dith through their work with the Asian American Journalists Association.

When you can experience America after living through what happens if countries are left to Communists -- particularly crazy Communists in Cambodia's case -- it's hard not to be patriotic.

Non-Story Of The Day

I bring you the Hooters Girls only to make a point: Some political news stories only exist because of big boobs in tight T-shirts, like this one from the Merc News:

It's a pretty safe bet Assemblyman Joe Coto won't be patronizing Hooters anymore.

"You're going to get me in trouble," Coto, D-San Jose, quipped last week, after IA inquired about the most interesting line item on his campaign expense report for late 2007.

The item on page 73 shows a $319.13 "meeting" at a Hooters restaurant in Sacramento, an eatery more famous for cleavage than cuisine thanks to the "Hooters Girls." That's what the attention-loving company calls the young women who dress in tight white tops and skimpy orange shorts while serving burgers, fried chicken and beer to drooling customers.

So what's Coto - a well-dressed, married man, a former superintendent for the East Side Union High School District - doing eating at a place like Hooters?

I am definitely not a Hooters fan -- I'm deeply suspicious of a restaurant that has to rely on sex for customers; it makes me question the quality of its food -- but c'mon, if an elected wants to eat there, it's not like he's spending campaign funds for crack and lap dances.

But here's how desperate the media is to titillate: Coto's Hooters bill was for carry-out for an office dinner, not for table service. Even thought they knew this, the experts in news judgment went ahead with the story anyway.

And we trust them with important stories.

Greenie Fundamentals Revealed

In the Greenie e-mag Greenbang, climate gal Dr. Kate Rowles lets down her guard and tells us what the Greenie/Warmie movement is really all about:

Greenbang: What do you think is wrong with the debate on climate change?

Dr Kate: It hasn’t really got to grips with the fundamental problem, which is that Western, industrialised lifestyles are literally unsustainable. Climate change is just one symptom of this. [The World Wildlife Federation] famously calculated that if everyone on earth were to enjoy the lifestyle of an average Western European, we would need three planet earths.

Not even the most optimistic believers in technology think that we can technofix this problem so that 6 billion people (let alone the projected 9 billion) can enjoy a western lifestyle without ecological meltdown. It follows that we urgently need to rethink what we currently mean by a ‘high standard of living’ and move away from materialistic versions of this to an understanding of quality of life that could be enjoyed by everyone, without causing environmental mayhem. This is about values, not just about technology.

I'm not "the most optimistic believer in technology" by any means, yet I think we can "technofix" the problem, because I believe in the boundless desire of man to survive and thrive ... and to adapt.

The Greenies think in terms of limits, not adaptation. To them, our future is limited, our ability to deal with change is limited, our ability to plan is limited, our intelligence is limited. Take for example the projection of a population of 9 million. China, India and Africa are responsible for most of the population growth and China and India have, through methods I hardly condone, gotten a handle on theirs. No limits to to human ability to learn and adapt.

Dreary Dr. Kate continues:

Current levels of consumption in industrialised societies are too high - as the three planet earth analysis clearly shows. This presents a major problem for current economic thinking, which is premised on growth, and which requires us all to keep consuming more, not less. Clearly we can’t grow infinitely, and consume infinitely, on a finite planet.

In other words, poor people of the world, unite! ... and give up all hope that your life will ever improve, because if the Greenies and Warmies succeed in dialing back Western creativity and growth, any hope the poor nations have for a better future is gone.

But that's OK with Dr. Kate Rowles, because if poor people live better, it's just more carbon to her.

h/t a long chain starting with What Bubba Knows, through Moonbattery and on ...

A Resounding McCain Endorsement

John McCain my not be touting this "endorsement" on his Web site -- after all, the headline is Why We Should Fear a McCain Presidency, and it is a scathing denouncement of his foreign policy. But given that it's from the Moscow Times, it's a reassurance that he might be the right man for the job.

A couple excerpts:

Driven in part by his intense commitment to the Iraq war, McCain has relied more on neoconservatives such as his close friend William Kristol, the Weekly Standard editor. His chief foreign policy adviser is Randy Scheunemann, another leading neoconservative and a founder of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. McCain shares their belief in what Kristol has called "national greatness conservatism." In 1999, McCain declared: "The U.S. is the indispensable nation because we have proven to be the greatest force for good in human history. ... We have every intention of continuing to use our primacy in world affairs for humanity's benefit." ...

Reflecting the neoconservative program of spreading democracy by force, McCain declared in 2000: "I'd institute a policy that I call 'rogue state rollback.' I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments."

Oh, the horror!

Never Having To Say You're Sorry

Pick you're media outlet; it's all the same story. Here's BBC:

Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr has ordered his fighters off the streets of Basra and other cities in an effort to end clashes with security forces.

He said in a statement that his movement wanted the Iraqi people to stop the bloodshed and maintain the nation's independence and stability.

I chose BBC because I was listening to it while driving home one day last week, as the fighting in Basra was just rolling out. What better source, eh?, since the Brit withdrawal from Basra had motivated Moqtada Sadr to start fighting again.

So BBC had its Basra reporter and some foreign affairs reporter from a British paper ... the Telegraph, I think ... on, talking about how this was going to be a tough fight, how strong Sadr is, how not-ready the Iraqi Army is, blah, blah, blah.

Well, I read the story about Sadr giving up in less than a week from top to bottom, and nowhere did I see an admission that they got it wrong. Again.

Another Crazy AG (Thank God!)

The Left loves to hate Bush AGs, and Michael Mukasey is no exception, maybe because he says stuff like this (in NanPo's hometown, yet!):

"Forget the liability [phone companies face]. We face the prospect of disclosure in open court of what they did, which is to say the means and the methods by which we collect foreign intelligence against foreign targets."

Whether it's demanding the closure of Gitmo so the worst terrorists in the world can be tried in our court system, or denying phone companies protection so that our technologies are laid open, the Lefties are intent on using our courts to put America at the greatest disadvantage possible in the war on terror.

Faced with enemies without and enemies within, Bush has no choice but to have a tough, no-nonsense AG. And recognizing that, the Left has no choice but to attack every AG Bush appoints.

The State Of The Dem Disunion

Not exactly sure what my friend Jim is doing reading Kos, but happily he found something really funny while perusing the hard left:

"I've been thinking."
"Really? What about?"
"I've decided your candidate's better than mine."
"What???"
"Yeah. I've been reading diaries and stuff. Your candidate's better than mine."
"That's weird, because lately I've been leaning toward your candidate."
"Really? How can you say that? Yours is clearly better."
"Not after the stuff I've read. You'd have to be crazy to support that keg of dynamite."
"But yours can beat McCain in November."
"No, yours has a much better chance."
"That's bullcrap. Yours isn't imploding."
"Well, yours isn’t getting hammered by the press."
"What??? Have you been living in a hole in the ground?"
"No, but I'd say you have."
"Look, I don’t want to fight about this. We're both Democrats and we both want to beat the Republicans, right?"
"Right. But if you're supporting the candidate that I'm running away from, we're gonna get clobbered in November."
"You really are f***ed up, you know that?"
"I'm not the one flushing our chances down the crapper, douchebag!"
"A**hole!"
"Party wrecker!"
"I'm writing a diary!"
"Me too!"

[ker-SLAM!]

Meanwhile, McCain gets to campaign with his former opponent, making happy-face and raising bucks.

Go Hillary, fight Obama!

Go Obama, fight Hillary!

Photo courtesy of the goofy but fun McCainBloggette blog.

Al Sadr's Cease-Fire: Already Gone?

The last week in Iraq has been a tough one -- so tough that Gen. David Petraeus is calling for a slow-down in the troop draw-down. At the center of the deterioration is a man who's absence from the war has been the cause of a period of relative safety: Muqtada al Sadr.

Explosions rang out across central Baghdad as rockets or mortars fired from Shiite areas targeted the U.S.-protected Green Zone for the second time this week.

The violence was part of an escalation in the confrontation between the Shiite-run government and al-Sadr's followers — a move that threatens the security gains achieved by U.S. and Iraqi forces. At least 22 people were killed in the Basra fighting.

Al-Sadr's allies have grown increasingly angry over raids and detentions against them by U.S. and Iraqi forces, who insist the crackdown only affects rogue elements loyal to Iran.

Al-Sadr's headquarters in Najaf also ordered field commanders with his Mahdi Army militia to go on maximum alert and prepare "to strike the occupiers" — a term used to describe U.S. forces — and their Iraqi allies, a militia officer said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't supposed to release the information. (AP)

The MSM is full to overflowing with this story today:

• McClatchy: Is 'success' of U.S. surge in Iraq about to unravel?
• LA Times: GOP senator retracts prediction of troop cuts
• CNN: Iraqi raids anger Shiite militia

For the US media, this isn't really drum-beating against the war timed to advantage the Dem prez candidates. After months of barely disguising their yawning over the lack of "newsworthy" stories coming out of a more peaceful Iraq (not that there weren't plenty of positive, newsworthy stories there), the press is responding as necessary to what appears to be the start of a more violent period.

That's not to say that drum-beating isn't going on; it is. The drums in Najaf are deafening. Al Sadr and his men are seeing two things they don't like: The Iraqi government is starting to re-open the doors to allow Suni participation in the government, and suddenly there's an increasing chance a pro-war president will be elected in the U.S.

Thus, the call to prepare to "strike the occupiers" is a clear signal that the cease fire -- such as it is -- may be coming to an end. In Basra, it already has:

The BBC's Adam Brookes says three Iraqi army brigades were deployed from Baghdad to Basra as back-up for the offensive, and that up to 15,000 troops could be involved.

Some of the fiercest fighting in the operation - dubbed Saulat al-Fursan (Charge of the Knights) - has focused on Mehdi Army strongholds.

Of the suspected militants known to have been killed so far, four died in street fighting and five in a coalition [British] air strike.

British military spokesman Maj Tom Holloway told the BBC no UK troops were involved on the ground.

This is a pivotal battle for the Iraqi army. Even to hold its own against the Medhi Army will be a sign of great progress; a tip of the scales towards victory will represent very positive news.

Don't count on such subtle commentary from the Dem prez candidates. They will focus only on the increase in violence, not on the causes -- which all speak to the progress of the Iraqi government and military, the effectiveness of the surge, and terrorists' fear of McCain.

For McCain, the messaging line that he alone among the candidates called the need for the surge correctly needs a tune-up. The new message -- Iraqi troops are getting better, but troop levels will have to remain higher than we'd like -- clashes against his "100 years in Iraq" mis-message, so he's got a challenge.