Mookie Extends the Cease-Fire

Another piece of good news from Iraq. Mookie al-Sadr has decided to "extend" the cease-fire between his Mahdi Army and Iraqi government [and US] forces for another six months. The Guardian reports:

BAGHDAD (AP) - Anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr announced Friday that he has extended a cease-fire order to his Shiite Mahdi Army by another six months, giving Iraq a chance to continue its fragile recovery from brutal sectarian violence.

His message was delivered by Shiite clerics during prayer services in mosques dominated by followers of the black-turbaned cleric.

``According to an order by Sayyid Muqtada, activities of the Mahdi Army will be suspended ... for another six month period,'' al-Sadr's aide Hazim al-Aaraji said, using an honorific for al-Sadr during his sermon at the Kazimiyah mosque in Baghdad.

Read the whole story here.

This is good news. Of course Mookie is keeping his options open and could at any time resume his attacks, but now for several months he has seen political participation in the new government as a more productive position than military opposition, and every month that the peace holds grants that government more legitimacy in the eyes of all Iraqis. The peace extension is thus one more indication that the democratic Iraqi regime has indeed turned a significant corner in its journey toward general reconciliation.

Belgrade is Burning

Approximately 200,000 Serbs attended a rally today protesting Western recognition of Kosovo's independence. Afterwards mobs surged through the streets attacking various embassies, including the American. The crowd briefly broke into the embassy and burned part of it.

Serbian President Boris Tadic urged rioters to stop.

"I appeal to our citizens to protest calmly. All those who take part in the unrest I want to withdraw from the streets and stop attacking foreign embassies," he said in a televised appeal. "This only keeps Kosovo distant from Serbia."

Rioters -- many wearing balaclavas and scarves to hide their faces -- had attacked the building with sticks and metal bars after destroying two guard boxes outside.

They ripped metal grilles from windows and tore a handrail off the entrance to use as a battering ram and gain entry.

One man climbed up to the first floor, ripped the Stars and Stripes off its pole and briefly put up a Serbian flag.

Other people jumped up and down on the balcony, holding up a Serbian flag as the crowd below of about 1,000 people cheered them on, shouting "Serbia, Serbia."

Black smoke billowed out of the embassy. Papers and chairs were thrown out of the windows, with doors wedged in the window frames and burning.

Some 200 riot police arrived later, driving the crowd away. Some protesters sat on the ground, bleeding. Fire engines arrived to put out the flames, local media reported.

Read it here.

Fox News reports that when police cleared the area a charred body was found -- apparently one of the protesters.

BBC video here.

WaPo coverage here.

We don't know yet whether this is a mere temper tantrum or not. It has the potential to escalate into something serious. The key seems to lie in Moscow. Serbia cannot act effectively against Kosovo without Russian sanction and protection. Putin has been acting ever more aggressively in the past few years, trying to re-establish Russia's status as a great power. The Kosovo situation might provide him with an opportunity to assert Russia's traditional role as the protector of Slavs against their Muslim enemies.

The other key lies in Western Europe. If Russian-backed Serbia takes action against the Kosovar Muslims will the EU or NATO respond, and if so, in what fashion?

Finally, a developing Balkan crisis will be a fascinating test for the presidential candidates in the US. Will Hillary defend or repudiate her husband's interventionist policy? Will she blame the current crisis on diplomatic failures? Will McCain be willing to bail out Europe again? And what about Obama? What will his position be? Is he willing to use military force to compel compliance with agreements forged in Western Europe?

Time will tell. Stay tuned.

More on Michelle Obama

The media and bloggy masses have focused on Michelle Obama's declaration that throughout her entire adult life she had not, until now, been proud of her country. That is an extraordinarily disturbing statement, one that reveals a deep adversarial relationship between this woman and the culture that has nourished her, but it is by no means the most problematic portion of that speech.

About eight minutes into it she has this to say:

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation and that you move out of your comfort zone. 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 – you have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eights years from now, you will have to be engaged.”

Read about it here and here.

This is scary, authoritarian stuff. There are disturbing depths to be plumbed in the Obama campaign. Let us hope that the New York Times will exert as much diligence in exploring them as they seem to have done with regard to Sen. McCain's career.

Bush and Africa: Style and Substance

Don Surber writes:

The left has adopted Darfur as a cause. Good for the left. There are several Web sites out there. One suggests that people wear wristbands. Another suggests that people make videos.

Barack Obama made a video. It is a nice video. This time, I don't think he lifted the speech from Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts.

That's style.

Here is the substance:

"The United States has imposed economic sanctions on seven Sudanese individuals responsible for violence in Darfur and on more than 160 companies owned or controlled by the government of Sudan," the White House said.

Here is some more substance.

"The United States is the largest single donor to Sudan, including to Darfur, where more than 2.5 million people live in camps for Internally Displaced Persons.

"Since the outbreak of violence in Darfur, the United States provided, through fiscal year 2007, nearly $2.5 billion in humanitarian and peacekeeping assistance to that region.

"In FY 2007, the U.S. gave more than $1 billion in assistance to the people of Sudan, including Darfur, and anticipates providing a similar amount in FY 2008.

"In 2007, the United States provided more than 67 percent of the World Food Program's food aid to Sudan, serving more than 6 million people throughout Sudan and eastern Chad," the White House said.

If you are reading that for the first time, you are far from alone.

That is because the American MSM has generally ignored all the good that Bush has done in Africa -- it doesn't fit their narrative -- but as Surber notes the foreign press has been far more attentive.

Read it here.

The Smears Start Early

And so it begins....

The New York Times and the New Republic team up to put out a story alleging [wink, wink, nudge, nudge] that several years ago Sen. McCain knew, attended a fund-raising meeting with, and shared a plane ride back to Washington with, an attractive woman half his age. The woman was a lobbyist.

There is no evidence of inappropriate behavior or any favors exchanged. Everyone involved denies that there was any sexual relationship. The only supporting evidence offered is that two aides warned McCain to stay away from the woman because being seen in public with her might raise the appearance of impropriety and that McCain had agreed to their request.

Read the story here.

Mark Ambinder reports the story here. What is disturbing is that many of his commentators are rushing to the assumption that there was a sexual relationship involved.

Bush in Africa Redux

I already noted this, but the Anchoress says it better and has the documentation to prove it:

President George W. Bush hugs a woman after a visit to Maasai Girls School in Arusha, Tanzania WH Photo by Eric Draper

I didn’t know Bush was still there! There is so little press coverage of Bush’s very well received visit to Africa that we don’t even know he’s there.

Contrast that to the day-to-day coverage (even his rest-stops were covered!) of President Clinton’s trip to Africa a decade ago - which was written about, analyzed, photographed and reported on endlessly and with a fervor bordering on the coverage on might expect to herald the second-coming of Christ.

Read it here.

And so it goes..., and so it goes.

Religiosity and Development

And while we are on the subject of the Atlantic, Alan Wolfe has an interesting article in the latest edition. In it he takes issue with the recent spate of scare stories predicting a rise in religious fervor that will disrupt the international system. He notes that on a global scale religiosity is on the decline, and that even in areas where it is high religious observance is evolving to accommodate secular rationalism. Secularism rather than religiosity, he argues, is the wave of the future.

I think he's right, but what struck me most in his article is the figure reposted above. It illustrates the relationship between religiosity and economic development. There are several interesting things to note in this chart.

First of all the inverse relationship between economic development and religiosity is striking. With few exceptions the wealthier a country becomes the lower its level of religiosity.

Secondly the regional concentration of wealth stands out. Note the concentration of African states on the left side of the graph and the cluster of Western European states on the right. Eastern Europe and Latin America, though more dispersed, also seem to occupy distinct areas on the graph.

Also note the outliers. Kuwait is distinctive in its high religiosity and comparatively high level of wealth. I am not certain why this is so, but suspect it has a lot to do with that country's experience in the past two decades. And by far the most distinctive country is the United States. Not only are Americans, in terms of their purchasing power, far wealthier than the citizens of any other nation, but Americans to an amazing extent generally resisted the secularizing drift of other developed populations. I suspect that this is because American Protestantism [and to a lesser degree Catholicism] has tended to celebrate rather than to denounce capitalism. Moreover America's extreme religious pluralism and its voluntaristic traditions encourage people to migrate across religious boundaries rather than to submit to doctrines that might undermine their material interests.

Interesting! Read Wolfe's article here.

Free Atlantic

The Atlantic Online is now free to all users. This one is definitely worth checking out. Lots and lots of good stuff there.

Read about it here.

Two Michelles

Michelle Malkin replies to Michelle Obama:

Like Michelle Obama, I am a “woman of color.” Like Michelle Obama, I am a working mother of two young children. Like Michelle Obama, I am a member of the 13th Generation of Americans born since the founding of our great nation.

Unlike Michelle Obama, I can’t keep track of the number of times I’ve been proud—really proud—of my country since I was born and privileged to live in it.

Read the whole thing here.

Malkin gets a reply from an Obama supporter here. [warning: disgusting language]

Ho Hum

I had almost forgotten -- this is Oscar Week. This Sunday approximately one tenth of the nation will tune in to see the ceremonies. The only people who actually seem to care are those in the industry and the "critical community" who get paid to watch films and write about them.

Michael Medved explains why the Oscars don't interest us much anymore. His argument can be boiled down to a few propositions. The proliferation of media has fragmented our common culture, blockbuster movies used to reflect the common culture and so did the Academy awards. Now movies are a niche entertainment, produced for small, carefully targeted audiences, and few people find much to interest them in the ceremonies celebrating those films. Read the whole thing here -- there's much wisdom in it.

For what it's worth -- I think "No Country for Old Men" should win best picture; Daniel Day Lewis should win for best actor; "Juno" should win something major; and beyond that I just don't care, although I did like Josh Brolin's work in "No Country".

Watching the Wisconsin Primary Coverage

General impressions:

Ding dong, the witch is [almost] dead.

Boy, that Obama guy really, really likes the sound of his own voice. He rambled on so long he began to remind me of Fidel.

What a Wonderful World!

BBC Reports:

Obesity needs to be tackled in the same way as climate change, a top nutritional scientist has said.

The chairman of the International Obesity Taskforce wants world leaders to agree a global pact to ensure that everyone is fed healthy food.

Professor Philip James said the challenge of obesity was so great that action was needed now, even without clear evidence of the best options.

Read it here.

No, this is not a Pythonesque satire -- these people seem to be entirely serious. This is where transnational crisis-mongering takes us. Global institutions are making a serious bid to control every aspect of our lives and to eradicate the national sovereignty that protects us from their authoritarian absurdities.

Three observations:

1. What a wonderful time this is in which we live! Only a generation ago we were beaing told that much of the world's population was at risk of dying from starvation. Now we worry about obesity. Give thanks to the inventors of genetically-modified food products. They have saved the world.

2. There is no limit to which the malevolent control freaks will go in their attempt to organize the world.

3. Credentialed scientific authority is at best a poor guide to public policy. Note that the call is for action despite admitted ignorance as to what would be the best option. Acting out of ignorance is a sure prescription for disaster.

Cuba Libre?

You knew it was coming. For the past year and more Fidel Castro, the Monster of Sierra Maestra, has been lapsing into a state of senile dementia that has rendered him incapable of acting effectively as head of state. State officials have kept a lid on the situation and have been governing in his stead through the long period of decline. It was only a matter of time until the real state of affairs was made public. Well, that time has come.

Now it is official. The sick old dictator has resigned, passing control to his equally brutal and only marginally less competent brother Raul. Babalu Blog has the announcement here; New York Times story here. This is a continuation of the sham. Raul is an alcoholic and only five years younger than Fidel. There is no chance that he will act as an effective chief of state. The committees that have been running things so far will continue to do so as various figures within the state apparatus contend for power.

Don't expect radical change immediately. Rather look for gradual liberalization of the regime as the old guard who fought with Fidel dies off and is replaced by a new generation of leaders.

What is probably most significant here is that Fidel's retirement provides an excuse for the United States to lift its trade and travel embargoes on Cuba. That will almost certainly happen if a Democrat gains the White House and there is no political crisis in Cuba. There is also a possibility that restrictions will be lifted or relaxed in a McCain administration [McCain seems to argue that easing of trade restrictions will hinge on political liberalization in Cuba]. Maybe Bush himself will act. Whatever the situation, we have here an opportunity to create a far more humane and reasonable relationship with Cuba. [the candidates' reactions are here; Michelle Malkin reports that Bush has no intention of lifting the embargo here.]

Who knows, maybe in a year or so "She Who Must Not Be Named" and I will be able to spend the worst weeks of winter lolling on a Cuban beach.

The basic questions are, (1) was Castro simply another Latin American caudillo whose system will die with him, or did he institutionalize his authoritarian system; (2) will the United States take this opportunity to redefine our relationship with the Cuban regime; (3) will liberalization take place in Cuba, and if so, will it be accompanied by violent conflict?

Time will tell.

Babalu Blog has extensive commentary here.

The Cuban Archive documents the atrocities committed by the Castro regime [here].

The Miami Herald commentary is here.

Bush in Africa

President Bush's five-nation trip to Africa, aimed at highlighting the problems of epidemic diseases on the continent, has not gotten a great deal of play in the US media, and what coverage there has been has usually been critical. Bush is assailed for not visiting the worst trouble spots, where civil wars are raging. This president, who has done more for the peoples of Africa than all other world leaders combined and much, much more than any other American president, is criticized for not doing more.

You know how it goes.

By contrast, Bill Clinton's extravagant Africa excursion, which consisted of little more than a series of photo-ops, was widely praised in the western media.

At least the WaPo admits:

By all accounts, Bush has done more to combat the AIDS pandemic that has devastated Africa than any other president, and even his harshest critics usually credit him for paying attention to a region often neglected by Washington. Much of the world has soured on the United States, but surveys by the Pew Global Attitudes Project show that Africa is one place where it is held in high regard.

Of course, the Post then goes on to dismiss the trip as a cynical exercise in "legacy building". No guys, that's what Bill Clinton does -- Bush is a far better man than his predecessor.

Read it here.

The New York Times is even worse.

DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania — President Bush has been smothered with affection here, never more so than on Sunday, when he sat at a wooden desk under a sweltering sun with President Jakaya Kikwete by his side and signed a $698 million grant of foreign aid to Tanzania. But while people here in the capital city of this East African nation are excited about Mr. Bush, another American politician seems to excite them even more — Senator Barack Obama. Mr. Bush is on a six-day, five-country tour to spotlight American efforts to fight poverty and disease in Africa. Though the president’s face is on billboards all over town, the name Obama is on the lips of Tanzanians — from taxi drivers to city merchants to the artisans who sell wooden Masai warriors in makeshift stalls at a dusty open-air market on the outskirts of town.

Way to stay "on message" guys. Read it here.

No matter how much the MSM works to diminish him, President Bush's actions with regard to Africa stand as a magnificent and generous effort, unparalleled by any of his contemporaries or predecessors.

Gateway Pundit has more here.

Floating Hearts

Driving through Princeton, New Jersey yesterday we saw this.


Now that Valentine's Day is over, they have no commercial value, so why not give them their freedom?

Hillary Emotes Again

It must be getting tough on the campaign trail. Hill is losing ground both in Wisconsin, which she has to win, and in the national polls. So she [get ready for it] starts choking back tears again.

KENOSHA, Wis.-- Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton’s voice filled with emotion today as she listened to the story of a mother and young daughter who said they were being forced from their home due to a skyrocketing adjustable mortgage.

Appearing at a rally and question and answer session inside the Brat Shop, a restaurant located off Interstate 94, the main north-south route between Chicago and Milwaukee, Clinton asked local officials if they could provide any help to the woman.

Read it here.

Bill and Hill have worked themselves into the position where nothing that they do can ever be taken at face value. The assumption is always that everything they present to the public is coldly and carefully calculated. Is this possible? Ot, can it be that she really can work herself into an emotional state listening to some stupid woman who signed up for an ARM expecting that interest rates would stay low forever.

Beats me.

Reporting Reconciliation In Iraq -- Or Not

I recently noted [here] that the Iraqi government has surpassed several of the benchmarks set by Congress about which Democrats have been complaining for many months. Tremendous progress has been made toward political reconciliation.

What's that you say? Never heard about it? That's because the MSM has been curiously quiet on the subject. Neo-Neocon describes the situation:

This particular event should have been the lead article on the front page of every newspaper. It should have been the big subject of all the talk shows. It ought to have been acknowledged by every critic of the surge—you know, the ones who initially said the surge wouldn’t work before it even began. The ones who then said Petraeus was lying about the drop in casualties. The ones who then said that it didn’t mean anything anyway because after all, the Iraqi legislature hadn’t met the proper benchmarks that would indicate political progress and reconciliation.

However, here’s how it played on the network news programs. Only ABC’s Charles Gibson saw fit to cover it, repeating an ABC pattern of being more favorable to favorable news from Iraq. And even Gibson alloted it only twenty seconds (although they were positive seconds), the sort of skim-the-surface coverage for which network TV news is notorious....

Read her whole piece here.

UPDATE:

Wretchard over at the Belmont Club explains just why this new agreement is so important:

This measure is vital to institutionalizing the gains won by the Surge. Iraq has long been crippled by the defective, UN-designed "closed-party list" voting system, which created political parties based on sectarian affiliation. A UN website describes why it adopted this system. It had the advantage of being easy ("no census is required") and creating what in the UN view was an appropriate structure of political coalitions. The trouble was the system encouraged the very same fraction that took Iraq to the brink of civil war.

One of the key problems facing strategists of the Surge was to find a way to institutionalize the grassroots movement of the past year. Former insurgents would of course, be retrained and put under the discipline of the Army or Police. But what of the political leaders? The natural path was to encourage the leadership which emerged during the Surge to stand for office, which proved very difficult to do under the closed-party list system. They were dressed up with no place to go.

The impasse in Baghdad is partly the result of a logjam of sectarian interests. There are also a fair number of politicians, who because of the sectarian nature of the coalitions, are stooges of Teheran. A new election law could sweep the logjam away in a flood, with the stooges in the bargain. Electoral reform is supremely important for long term success. It is the linchpin of "reconciliation".

Read it here.

Note that a major obstacle to reconciliation as well as an important source of Iranian influence in Iraq has been an electoral system invented and imposed by the United Nations, while the key to reconciliation lies with the "bottom-up" approach to governance favored by the Bush administration. A major part of the problem with extending democracy into the Muslim world is that Western elites outside the United States [and including the Democratic Party leadership] cannot conceive of reform that is not directed from a central authority. In a very real sense it is Western lefties and transnational elites, not the Muslim peoples themselves, who are not ready for democratic reform in West Asia.

Walking Through the Woods...

It's the weekend again, so I'm posting a couple more pictures of the prettiest State in the Union, Pennsylvania.

Walking through the woods after a snowy morning, I chanced upon this tree. "Nice", I thought, and snapped a picture. In a few months, once the leaves have returned, I plan to go back again and see what it looks like fully clothed. I can hardly wait for Spring, but deep winter has its attractions too.

One of the things I love about Pennsylvania fields and forests is how every day you can look around you and see something extraordinary.


After an early snowfall I walked out onto my driveway and saw this.

See what I mean? It's the weekend, tear yourself away from the computer, grab a camera [it doesn't have to be a top end piece of equipment] go outside and take a long, hard look at what you can see. Chances are it's better than anything you'll find online.

K'Lo on Romney

I often find myself in essential agreement with John McCain on a wide range of issues, but I have to admit that I just don't like the man. Far too often he comes across as a smirking, sneering bully. Conversely, I have deep disagreements with Mitt Romney on a number of issues, but I find him to be an admirable human being. K'lo over at NRO has a similar reaction to the man. She writes:

What a breath of fresh air the Romneys on the public stage have been. Way too often in pop culture, men are portrayed as dopes; think about just about any sitcom. The dad/husband is portrayed as a doofus. What’s wrong with having somebody in public life who’s like Mitt Romney — a capable, experienced executive who loves his country and also happens to be a God-fearing father and husband? That’s not a bad thing for Americans to see. Forgive him for being easy on the eyes.
And I’ll go one step further. I worry about a political culture that is a little too suspicious of a scandal-less, all-American-gee-whiz-this-is-the-American-dream- in-overdrive package. We should be glad that good people — who, while well-off, are not without their share of painful crosses — are willing to subject themselves to the ugliness that politics can inflict. We should be grateful that good families will make the sacrifices necessary to serve — and make those sacrifices with no guarantees they’ll succeed....

Mitt Romney has money, smarts, support, and a loyal staff. He’ll be fine. But the rest of us will have, someday, to face up to the consequences of a culture of political cynicism.

Read it here.

I agree.

She Has Her Mother's Eyes

Somehow that scares the Hell outa me.

Huge Breakthrough on Iraq

For several months now encouraging news has been coming out of Iraq. First there were the military successes in places like Fallujah and through Anbar province, then evidence that al Qaeda was being marginalized throughout the country and much of its leadership eliminated, then came the emergence 0f local leadership organizations and a much improved Iraqi military and police institutions. [here] None of this much impressed America's elite news institutions which continued to parrot the Democrat line that whatever successes were achieved in Iraq, they were not enough.

You know how the game goes -- just keep moving the goalposts. Military success meant nothing until civil order was restored; the restoration of civil order in much of Iraq meant nothing until effective central government was installed; central government could not be effective while religious and ethnic divisions remained, etc., etc. The main point was to deny Bush any semblance of victory.

More recently there have been reports of significant political progress in the Iraqi national government [here]. [Note that the biggest obstacle to reconciliation has been an electoral system imposed by the United Nations.] Until now these have been widely ignored, but today the NYT breaks the vow of silence on progress in Iraq with this report:

[A]fter months of bitter feuding, Iraq’s Parliament has finally approved a budget, outlined the scope of provincial powers, set an Oct. 1 date for provincial elections and voted a general amnesty for detainees.

All these steps are essential for national conciliation.

Read the whole thing here.

This is a huge breakthrough.

Of course this is the New York Times, and so every positive development is accompanied by a slew of qualifications and doubts, but the fact that this bastion of liberal correctness is willing to admit that there has been "some" political progress is itself a tremendous crack in the liberal wall of denial. Reality is beginning to seep through and there is finally some hope that the Democratic Party will begin to come to terms with the real world beyond our borders.

Who Knew?

Aussie Director Drew Heriot is developing a film, The Aquarian Gospel, about Jesus' "lost years" (between ages 13 and 30, which are not covered in the synoptic gospels). [here]

Mallika Sherawat, pictured above, has been signed to play Jesus' girlfriend who accompanies him on journeys through India, Tibet, Persia, Greece and Egypt.

Why didn't we learn about this in Sunday School?

Palin for Veep?

Recognize her? That's Sarah Palin, former beauty queen, rising Republican star, and currently governor of Alaska, who is being mentioned as a possible running mate for John McCain [here].

Sounds good to me. Let's see the Dems try to top her. Trouble is, Alaska doesn't have very many electoral votes and they're not really in play so she's a very long shot. Still she is a lifelong NRA member and pro-life and is a lot prettier than McCain. I'd vote for her.

More Lies of the Left: Why We Went to War

Norm over at Normblog notes that, contrary to repeated assertions by left-wing commentators, both the British and American governments prior to invasion provided numerous reasons for intervention in Iraq other than WMDs. Lefties repeatedly assert that humanitarian, political and strategic considerations were only raised as afterthoughts, but that is patently untrue.

Follow Norm's links for documentation and his explanation for why the Left is so insistent on asserting this blatant untruth.

Read it here.

Manufacturing History: More Lies of the Left

In a recent poll of high school seniors asking them to name the most famous Americans [presidents excepted] Harriet Tubman ranked third, after Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks [here]. That in itself is a sobering piece of information for what it says about the teaching of history in our public schools, but Tubman's prominence (like that of Parks completely out of line with her historical significance) has raised another issue -- the apparent fabrication of evidence.

Ralph Luker, over at HNN [here], writes about the most important quote attributed to Ms. Tubman. It goes like this:

When asked how she managed to save hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, she replied bitterly, "I could have saved thousands-if only I'd been able to convince them they were slaves."

This quote has been reproduced in hundreds of articles and commentaries and has been discussed by important scholars for the insight it provides into issues of power and oppression, but, as Luker points out, it quite possibly was invented by feminist writer, Robin Morgan. There appears to be no independent attribution of the quote other than an essay written by Morgan titled Goodbye to All That (#2) [here] and Morgan fails to cite a source for the quote.

Here we apparently have the fabrication of history to advance an ideological agenda -- the construction of a national narrative based on the organizing concepts of oppression and victimization. This emphasis on oppression and its presumed consequences has become the dominant motif for the teaching of history in our public institutions. While it has a certain amount of legitimacy and explanatory power, this victimization narrative is in itself a serious distortion of our national experience. The willingness of scholars to accept and widely reproduce an apparently manufactured piece of evidence touching on the psychological consequences of oppression is a disturbing reminder of the extent to which left-wing ideology and a concomitant disregard for history as it was actually experienced have characterized our national discourse.

Props to Ralph and his correspondents for exposing this sham.

A New Source of Embryonic Stem Cells

Remember all those yahoos on the Left who complained that the Bush administration's ban on utilizing stem cells harvested from fetuses would cripple medical research? Of course you do! Well, once again their protests were based on false premises.

Science Daily reports:

(Feb. 12, 2008) — UCLA stem cell scientists have reprogrammed human skin cells into cells with the same unlimited properties as embryonic stem cells without using embryos or eggs.

...

The implications for disease treatment could be significant. Reprogramming adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells could generate a potentially limitless source of immune-compatible cells for tissue engineering and transplantation medicine.

...

"Our reprogrammed human skin cells were virtually indistinguishable from human embryonic stem cells," said Plath, an assistant professor of biological chemistry, a researcher with the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research and lead author of the study. "Our findings are an important step towards manipulating differentiated human cells to generate an unlimited supply of patient specific pluripotent stem cells. We are very excited about the potential implications."

Read the whole thing here.

Good news all around. There goes another campaign issue down the drain.

The state of scientific understanding is constantly changing. Yesterday's crises turn out to be today's opportunities. It is quite possible that an abundantly available supply of embryonic stem cells, such as the Democrats sought to provide, would have postponed or even precluded this immensely fruitful line of research that has produced a superior alternative.

The Easiest Part of Democracy

The Anchoress has a question for the "talk-show" conservatives who are dissing Sen. McCain:

This is what I keep wondering - there is all this footstomping about McCain, but if you really wanted Romney all along, you’d have supported him all along, and Thompson did not really want your support, he just wanted to audition for Veep.

So who, really DID the “true conservatives” really want for president this year? Why am I still not hearing any names being bandied about - why am I still hearing only bitching…which is the easiest part of Democracy?

Read it here.

Good question!

Bush Wins Another One

For a "lame duck" president, Dubya is winning a LOT of battles. AP reports:

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Tuesday to shield from lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without court permission after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

After nearly two months of stops and starts, the Senate rejected by a vote of 31 to 67 a move to strip away a grant of retroactive legal immunity for the companies.

President Bush has promised to veto any new surveillance bill that does not protect the companies that helped the government in its warrantless wiretapping program, arguing that it is essential if the private sector is to give the government the help it needs.

About 40 lawsuits have been filed against telecom companies by people alleging violations of wiretapping and privacy laws.

The Senate also rejected two amendments that sought to water down the immunity provision.

Read it here.

This is another big win for one of the most effective and consequential presidents we have ever had. Not surprisingly my least favorite Senator, Arlen Specter, tried to water down the immunity provision.

Birthdays

On this day in 1809 Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln, two men who changed the world, were born.

Happy birthday guys. Nice job!

A Case for Not Taking Action on the Environment

So the Gorey activists tell us to switch to biofuels as a way to reduce greenhouse gases, and we start to, then new studies show that the production of biofuels creates more greenhouse gases than is saved by using them. [here]

"So what's the problem?" say the activists -- "We tried a solution and it didn't work, try another."

But the problem is real. Instituting public policy to encourage or compel certain kinds of activities is expensive and introduces serious distortions into markets. We saw that when shifting agriculture to the production of biofuels created food shortages in much of the world. What is more, once instituted public policies create constituencies that will fight to keep them intact even if they prove to be counter-productive. Biofuels production has a big constituency in the farm states.

The point is that expert solutions that sound great in theory can be disastrous when applied to public policy and once instituted are very hard to change. This is why we should approach subjects like climate change hesitantly and with considerable trepidation rather than going in whole hog on the basis of expert opinion.

Global warming enthusiasts, like Sen. McCain, like to point to dramatic events like the collapse of the Larson ice shelf in Antarctica to prove their assertion that global warming is an imminent and overwhelming problem that must be addressed immediately. But time and again studies disprove that the original interpretations of these events were erroneous.

Science News Daily reports:

(Feb. 11, 2008) — When the Larsen B Ice Shelf in Antarctica collapsed in 2002, the event appeared to be a sudden response to climate change, and this long, fringing ice shelf in the north west part of the Weddell Sea was assumed to be the latest in a long line of victims of Antarctic summer heat waves linked to Global Warming.

However in a paper published in the Journal of Glaciology, Prof. Neil Glasser of Aberystwyth University, working as a Fulbright Scholar in the US, and Dr Ted Scambos of University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Centre now say that the shelf was already teetering on collapse before the final summer.

“Ice shelf collapse is not as simple as we first thought,” said Professor Glasser, lead author of the paper. “Because large amounts of meltwater appeared on the ice shelf just before it collapsed, we had always assumed that air temperature increases were to blame. But our new study shows that ice-shelf break up is not controlled simply by climate. A number of other atmospheric, oceanic and glaciological factors are involved. For example, the location and spacing of fractures on the ice shelf such as crevasses and rifts are very important too because they determine how strong or weak the ice shelf is”.

So, once again the original assumptions made and conclusions reached by experts were shown to be erroneous. Once again we have an excellent example of why scientific authority is an inadequate guide for making public policy and a warning against undertaking precipitate and potentially mis-informed action that will have unforeseen consequences for future generations.

Read the article here.

Mars to Earth, Mars to Earth..., have a nice day!

This picture of a crater resembling a "happy face" was acquired by the Context Camera (CTX) on Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter on January 28, 2008. The unnamed crater is about 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) across. It is located among the Nereidum Montes, north of the Argyre basin, near 45.1°S, 55.0°W. North is toward the right and sunlight illuminates the scene from the upper right. Credit: NASA / JPL / MSSS

Read about it here.

Apparently Mars is dotted with this kind of graffiti. Here are pictures of two more Martian happy faces.

A Dim Ray of Sanity on Climate Change

Over at the New York Times, John Tierney cites a study of global warming issues by Indur Goklany of the Cato Institute [the report is here, Tierney's article is here]. The gist of Goklany's analysis is that scarce resources would be better spent addressing immediate problems in the developing world rather than trying to forestall long-term climate change. In other words economic development is far more important than dubious plans for combating climate change and will provide resources for future generations to use in coping with whatever adverse consequences might eventually emerge from global warming. He calls this the "warmest but richest" strategy.

If we continue to promote economic development, he argues,

For the foreseeable future, people will be wealthier—and their well-being higher—than is the case for present generations both in the developed and developing worlds and with or without climate change. The well-being of future inhabitants in today’s developing world would exceed that of the inhabitants of today’s developed world under all but the poorest scenario. Future generations should, moreover, have greater access to human capital and technology to address whatever problems they might face, including climate change. Hence the argument that we should shift resources from dealing with the real and urgent problems confronting present generations to solving potential problems of tomorrow’s wealthier and better positioned generations is unpersuasive at best and verging on immoral at worst.

As Tierney points out this is ultimately a humanistic moral judgment, one that places the well-being of human beings at its core. Others might raise spiritual or aesthetic objections to counter it. And, of course, declinists are fond of asserting that the future will be poorer, meaner, and more problematic than the present. I, for one, find none of these objections persuasive.

Goklany's arguments are by no means new. Their most vocal exponent for years has been Bjorn Lonborg, the "Skeptical Environmentalist". I have myself articulated similar points of view several times and have heard them from the mouths of several scientists with whom I have spoken. But this perspective has rarely been found in the mainstream media which breathlessly reports every scare story that appears, or in our educational institutions which relentlessly push Al Gore's fevered fantasies on our children, or in the entertainment media which continues to crank out environmental disaster scenarios.

Goklany's analysis is eminently sensible and, to my mind, moral. It is encouraging to see it reported by the New York Times. Perhaps sanity is beginning to intrude on the hysterical global warming/climate change discourse.

Let us hope so.

TCM Delivers

What a day this is! Turner Classic Movies is presenting an amazing lineup of wonderful films.

I am currently watching "Gaslight", a great George Cukor psychological mystery starring Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman, and when that is finished we move on to Hitchcock's "Spellbound" also starring Bergman, and, of course, Gregory Peck. This is good Hitchcock and Bergman at her loveliest. The film is a joy to behold. And it just keeps getting better. Next up is the "Maltese Falcon", with Bogie, Mary Astor, Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, Elisha Cook, Jr. Aaaaaaaah! Bliss!

Then comes "Murder On the Orient Express" starring Albert Finney as Poirot, a young Sean Connery and, once again, Ingrid Bergman, thirty years after her appearance in "Gaslight". It' a trifle but an amusing romp with some great talents having fun with Dame Agatha's characters.

But wait! There's more! "Sleuth" starring Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier in a delightfully evil confrontation; then Tim Burton's "Nightmare Before Christmas" and the magnificent "Lord Of the Rings: Return Of the King" and then, the chilling "Silence Of the Lambs". And if you are still awake "Se7en", the "head in a box" shocker.

Whew!

For a movie fan, it just doesn't get better than this.

Enjoy!

The Crusades: What Went Before

For decades now anti-western multicultural educators, reflecting the malignant influence of Edward Said, have been assiduously promoting the idea that the Crusades were a prime example of Western arrogance -- a vicious and unprovoked assault upon an intellectually and morally superior Islamic "other". Roger Sandall summarizes the counter argument -- that Christians, not Muslims, were the aggrieved victims of arrogant imperialism.

[T]he 463 years between the death of Muhammed in 632 AD, and the First Crusade in 1095, were extremely dangerous for Christian Europe. Instead of peace there were unrelenting Islamic wars and incursions; Muslim invasions of Spain, Italy, Sicily and Sardinia; raids, seizures, looting of treasure, military occupations that lasted until Saracen forces were forcibly dislodged, sackings of Christian cities including Rome, and desecrations of Christian shrines. And be it noted: all this went on for 463 years before any Christian Crusade in response to these murderous provocations took place.

Sixteen years after the death of Muhammed, in 648 AD, Cyprus was overrun. Rhodes fell in 653, and by 698 AD the whole of North Africa was lost. In 711 Muslims from Tangier crossed into Spain, set their sights on France, and by 720 AD Narbonne had fallen. Bordeaux was stormed and its churches burnt in 732. As Gibbon emphasised, only the resistance at Poitiers of Charles Martel in 732 saved Europe from occupation, and arrested the Muslim tide.

From 800 on, incursions into Italy began. In 846 a Saracen force of 10,000 landed in Ostia, assaulted Rome, and sacked and desecrated the Basilicas of St Peter and St Paul. In 859 they seized the whole of Sicily. After capturing a fortress near Anzio, Muslim forces “plundered the surrounding countryside for forty years”. In southern France at the end of the ninth century they held a base near Toulon from which they ravaged both Provence and Northern Italy, and controlled the passes over the Alps, robbing and murdering pilgrims on their way to Rome. Genoa was attacked in 934 and taken in 935. In 1015 Sardinia was taken, occupied, and held my Muslim forces until 1050.

In 1076 the Seljuk Turkish capture of Jerusalem finally exhausted the patience of Islam’s victims in Christian Europe. Only then were concerted moves begun to drive back the infidel, launch the First Crusade, and retake Jerusalem.

He has much more to say on the subject of religion and violence, all of it interesting. Check out his essay here.

Obama Sweeps; Hillary Weeps

Hillary is in trouble. Obama swept today's contests and it wasn't even close. So, once again it is time to turn on the waterworks, to soften her image, and to attempt to convince the most gullible of voters that she really, really, really cares..., she really does!

Faugh!

Scientific Madness

The effort to gin up hysteria over the global warming issue has taken a decidedly dangerous turn. Dr. David Suzuki has repeatedly called for the incarceration of people who deviate from the party line on climate change. The National Post reports:

David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change.

At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime. Though a spokesman said yesterday the call for imprisonment was not meant to be taken literally, Dr. Suzuki reportedly made similar remarks in an address at the University of Toronto last month.

Read it here.

This is dangerous stuff and must be resisted. Scientific and other expert authorities cannot be allowed to dictate policy on global warming or anything else. They should be listened to, but their prescriptions must be balanced against other considerations -- political, economic, social, and even moral.

We must thank Dr. Suzuki for providing us with a glimpse into the authoritarian mindset of the global warming crowd.

By the way, the audience of 600 who heard this lunacy were not frightened by what they heard -- they enthusiastically applauded Dr. Suzuki's statements.

Be afraid of these people..., be very afraid!

This sort of thing is why Sen. McCain's enthusiasm for the claims of the climate change crowd makes me very, very nervous.

UPDATE:

Wretchard over at the Belmont Club notes the Orwellian resonances of Dr. Suzuki's remarks. [here]

UPDATE:

Suzuki is not alone. Witness this editorial by David Shearman, co-author [with Joseph Wayne Smith] of The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy, which argues:

Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens. The subject is almost sacrosanct and those who indulge in criticism are labeled as Marxists, socialists, fundamentalists and worse. These labels are used because alternatives to democracy cannot be perceived! Support for Western democracy is messianic as proselytised by a President leading a flawed democracy

There must be open minds to look critically at liberal democracy. Reform must involve the adoption of structures to act quickly regardless of some perceived liberties. It is not that liberal democracy cannot react once it sees a threat, for example, the speedy response to a recent international financial emergency. If governments can recognise a financial emergency and in an instant move heaven and earth (and billions of dollars, pounds sterling and euros) to contain it, why are they unable to do the same in response to a global environmental emergency? Quite simply our system is seen to live and breathe by the present economic system; the problem is that living and breathing within the confines of the world ecological systems is contrary to the activity of progress and development as defined within liberal democracy.

The Chinese decision [to ban plastic] shopping bags is authoritarian and contrasts with the voluntary non-effective solutions put forward in most Western democracies. We are going to have to look how authoritarian decisions based on consensus science can be implemented to contain greenhouse emissions. It is not that we do not tolerate such decisions in the very heart of our society, in wide range of enterprises from corporate empires to emergency and intensive care units. If we do not act urgently we may find we have chosen total liberty rather than life.

Read it here.

And there we have it -- the authoritarian [dare I say "fascist"?] tendency at the heart of the climate change movement. As I said before, be afraid of these people. Be very afraid! They must be resisted.

Oh, and regarding that mythical "scientific consensus" the henny pennys keep prattling on about. It seems that a growing number of scientists are looking at solar radiation output and worrying about a coming ice age. Read about it here.

Lileks Rants!

Lileks is off on another of his rants -- they are not to be missed. This time his subject is "Love of Country" or rather the lack of is in some quarters. A sample:

Love of country must always be qualified these days, lest anyone think you are unaware of slavery, insufficiently regulated railroad stock offerings, Lester Maddox or the attempt by Philip Morris to conceal the addictive nature of cigarettes. Say “I love this country” at a dinner table with strangers, and it’s like shave and a haircut without the two bits. But? But? We are an exceptional nation, to be sure, but you can’t leave it at that. We are exceptionally misguided, exceptionally lazy and xenophobic, shot through to the pith with bilious perfidy, and our sole redeeming quality is our ability to constantly remake ourselves. We’ll either perfect society so we can perfect human nature, or do it the other way around. Either’s fine. Whatever works.

Nobody does this stuff better than Lileks. Read the whole thing here.

Looking Forward: Bush and McCain, Continuity Not Change

There are many ways to interpret the outcome of the super-duper primaries and these have been churned over and over and over both in the MSM and in the blogosphere. What struck me most was the fact that both major parties consigned their major organizing myths to the dustbin of history.

On the Republican side, the mythic image that has faded is that of Ronaldo Magnus, the paragon of conservative purity. Republican voters turned their backs on the presumptive heirs to the Reagan legacy and chose, instead, a “maverick” who frequently has expressed his contempt for the party’s ideological purists. At the same time, in a desperate bid to stay relevant, the Kennedy clan – Teddy, Caroline, and Maria – took to the airways to endorse that nice young man from Chicago about whom so little is known other than the fact that he is black. The result? Obama lost Massachusetts and California while doing much better in places where Kennedys are seldom seen and heard. Obviously the Kennedy “mystique” doesn’t carry the weight it once did. Finally, the Democrats’ competing myth – that of Clintonian political genius, has been firmly rejected and the old roué stands exposed for all to see as the slimy, opportunistic, unprincipled hack he always has been.

This, I think, is all to the good. Elite opinionmakers in both parties have in recent years indulged themselves in a perverse nostalgia for a past that never was. Democrats have clung tenaciously to the “Myth of Camelot” or a fantastic Clintonian era of perfect “peace and prosperity” while Republicans have extolled the imaginary glories of the “Reagan Revolution”. Staring fixedly back toward an imagined golden age, opinion-makers in both parties have lost touch with the world as it is today and have failed to appreciate those, most importantly President Bush, who are attempting with considerable success to grapple with the great problems of our times. Republican pundits have assailed President Bush because he wasn’t Ronald Reagan while Democrats disparage him because he seems to lack the presumed elegance and sophistication of a Kennedy or the political shrewdness of a Clinton. In all three cases he has been measured against false standards rooted more in ideology and partisan fantasies than in history. It is time that we begin to understand our national leadership as it is, rather than as we wish it might be or imagine it once was.

I have often opined that the Republicans need to stop searching for the next Reagan and instead look for the next Dubya. After all more than two thirds of Republican voters approve of the current administration. It appears that, despite the protestations of the pundits, they have found him.

Few are willing to admit it, but John McCain has a lot in common with the current President. Both are strong on tax cuts and on free trade, both are adamant on the need to vigorously prosecute the global war on terror, and both favor a compassionate resolution to the problems raised by the influx of illegal immigrants. Most importantly, both are men who are willing to place compassion and an appreciation of our common humanity above ideology and mere partisanship. There are many reasons to dislike John McCain, most of them rooted in his [I have detailed some here; Yuval Levin discusses lots more here] but there are also many reasons to embrace him, understanding that in doing so we are recognizing that the Bush regime has had much to recommend it, that the past eight years have not been the disaster ideologues of both the Left and the Right have made it out to be.

After the Rains

Driving through the Pennsylvania mountains after a couple of days of rain, I saw this. It's just a road cut, but I was struck by the curve of the mounds and the trees.



Turning south I almost immediately came upon this. A lone tree emerging from the mist.



This is for Lucille, a dear friend who has an extravagant affection for red barns.

A Convention of Vultures

A cold , wet, and dreary day. "She Who Must Not Be Named" and I were driving south through the mountains toward Reading, Pennsylvania. As we passed through Port Clinton I looked up and saw this. The trees were filled with turkey vultures, driven down by the persistent rain. We pulled over and I got out to take pictures. It was a very spooky moment, being so close to so many vultures.

What is interesting was that many of them were spreading their wings in the breeze, trying to dry them despite the constant drizzle.

A few miles further on we saw hundreds of geese and gulls sitting out the rain in a cropped cornfield. I had put the camera away and we didn't have time to stop, unpack, and take pictures. Too bad -- it was impressive. The following day we drove past the same site. The gulls were gone, but a lot of the geese remained. I tried to take some pictures from the moving car ["She" was driving] but I didn't have a long lens, so they didn't come out too well. You'll have to take my word for it -- the sight was impressive, even if the photos don't show it.

Subversive Bureaucrats

I am not a fan of John Bolton's. His "plain talk" all too often consists of urging the administration to take precipitate and dangerous actions. I see him as sort of a Lou Dobbs of the Right. Well, maybe not quite so repulsive as Dobbs, but repulsive enough. I can see why so many people opposed his nomination.

But, as my grandaddy used to say, "even a blind hog can find an acorn once in a while" and Bolton's recent piece in the Wall Street Journal is dead on the nose. In it he accuses the intelligence services of outright subversion that borders on treason. The evidence for that assessment is overwhelming and it is high time that the seamy underside of the inter-agency wars be exposed. This time Bolton knows whereof he writes. Pay attention to him.

Read the whole thing here.

Obama? Bah! Humbug!

Americans are a sentimental people. When deserved our frequent outpourings of sentiment are laudable -- expressions of the better angels of our nature. But all too frequently our emotions are fixed on someone or something entirely unworthy of them. That seems to be the case with that well-spoken young man from Chicago who lacking any substantial qualifications for the job, ardently desires to become President of the United States. [Apologies to Walter Winchell, who used roughly those terms to describe Franklin Roosevelt, whose first two terms, historians now agree, were a disaster].

Fred Siegel notes the current enthusiasm for an empty suit with despair.

It will be ironic if in the name of post-partisanship we manage, with the contrivance of both Left and Right, to elect Oprah’s candidate, a man with a narrowly partisan record who has never demonstrated a capacity (rhetoric aside) either to lead or to govern. Only Clinton derangement syndrome can explain the alliance of so many otherwise thoughtful people of both parties who speak well of the candidacy of a man with scant knowledge of the world who has never been tested and has never run anything larger than a senatorial office. The question that we need to ask is whether this man—who candidly admits, “I’m not a manager”—can manage the vast apparatus of the federal government. Will packaging be enough to deal with our problems?

Read it here.

Siegel attributes the mindless enthusiasm for young Mr. Obama to a massive revulsion on the part of seniors and youths against the disgusting excesses of the boomer generation. In a sense I agree -- I, too, have been amazed by the despicable narcissism that is rampant in that age cohort -- but I suspect that there is much more to it. I will have more to say on the subject later, but right now I have limited access to the internet [Dunkin' Donuts] and "She Who Must Not Be Named" is coming to pick me up in about ten minutes, so I have to move on. For now, just read the article, it's a good one.

UPDATE:

I note that James Kirchick, over at Commentary, cites Siegel's article and notes that the enthusiasm for Obama is not unlike the emotional outpouring at Princess Di's death. [here]

Too Little, Too Late? Romney Notches a Win!

I'm afraid it is. In the midst of the torrent of news portraying McCain's nomination as inevitable comes this:

Mitt Romney coasted to a win in presidential preference voting by Maine Republicans on Saturday, claiming his third victory in a caucus state and fourth overall.

The former Massachusetts governor had 52 percent of the vote with 68 percent of the towns holding caucuses reporting. John McCain trailed with 21 percent, Ron Paul was third with 19 percent, and Mike Huckabee had 6 percent. Undecided votes accounted for 2 percent.

The nonbinding votes, the first step toward electing 18 Maine delegates to the Republican National Convention, took place in public schools, Grange halls, fire stations and town halls across the state.

The Associated Press uses presidential preferences expressed in those caucuses to project the number of national convention delegates each candidate will have when they are chosen at Maine's state convention, calculating that Romney will wind up with all 18 delegates when all is said and done.

Read it here.

Will this have any effect on the Super Tuesday outcome -- not likely, but at least it is one small ray of hope that this idiotic selection process will produce a sane outcome.

UPDATE:

Another small sliver of hope: Reuters reports that Romney has a small lead in California polls going into tomorrow's election.

Romney leads McCain by 37 percent to 34 percent in California. The poll's margin of error is 2.9 percentage points. "California could be Romney's last stand," Zogby said. "If he wins there, it may not be a whole new ballgame, but it can give those Republicans who oppose McCain hope they still have a chance to stop him."

Read it here.

But all this is going to be for naught. McCain's lead is probably insurmountable. Here's a visual representation of recent polling data from Pollster.com, the best free web source on political polling. As you can easily see, McCain has a comfortable lead in all but a few states.

Clinton and Cruise Together

Priceless mashup:

Bush vs. Mitt

Bob Novak is reporting that the Bush White House was instrumental in promoting John McCain's candidacy and undercutting that of Mitt Romney. The reason? McCain had supported Bush on both the war in Iraq and on comprehensive immigration reform while Mitt had taken oppositional stances on both.

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing generally with McCain on most major issues [except for his Gorish stance on the environment, which I find disturbing] but at the same time feeling that Mitt would make a far better president, despite the fact that I disagree with him on most issues. I just don't trust McCain's temperment, and as for his managerial skills -- he doesn't have any.

On the Democrat side, neither candidate is acceptable. Hillary is..., well..., Hillary! and for the life of me I can't figure out from his statements just what Obama stands for. Fortunately, being an independent, I don't have to take any sides until the general elections and then I will probably take Mrs. McCain's advice and hold my nose while I vote for her son.

HAPPY GROUNDHOG DAY!!!!

Later today, at Gobbler's Knob near Punxsutawney, PA [the "land of the stinging gnats"] an extremely well-fed rodent named Phil will emerge from his lair to determine just how much longer this miserable winter will last.

Here's a short piece on the origins of these bizarre Western Pennsylvania cult rituals.

UPDATE:

Well, Phil came, he saw, and this is the result -- the official proclamation of Phil read at sunrise today:

Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

On Gobbler's Knob on this fabulous Groundhog Day, February 2nd, 2008
Punxsutawney Phil, the Seer of Seers, Prognosticator of all Prognosticators,
Rose to the call of President Bill Cooper and greeted his handlers, Ben Hughes and John Griffiths.

After casting a weathered eye toward thousands of his faithful followers,
Phil consulted with President Cooper and directed him to the appropriate scroll, which proclaimed:

"As I look around me, a bright sky I see, and a shadow beside me.
Six more weeks of winter it will be!"

Sorry, folks!

Read it here.

Carter's False Morality

James Taranto has a fascinating piece in the WSJ on the prideful roots of Jimmah Carter's ostentatious humility. It's the opposite of the mote/beam problem [ignoring your own great sins while focusing on the minor transgressions of another]. In this form, so much favored by contemporary moralistic poseurs, any Western failing, no matter how trivial, is an excuse for ignoring horrible actions taken by non-western regimes. After all, they would argue, who are we to judge others when we are far from perfect ourselves.

While such ostentatious and prideful humility might be relatively harmless in the realm of personal conduct, it is dangerous in world affairs. Taranto writes:

When applied to public as opposed to private morality, this kind of above-it-all attitude, this self-regard masquerading as humility, provides an excuse for inaction in the face of evil. To be sure, sometimes inaction is a wise course, because available actions would only make matters worse. But this is a practical question--one of consequences, not intention.

To make the perfect the enemy of the good, to make a principle of responding to evil with inaction, is a dangerous way to approach the world. That should have been the lesson of the Carter presidency. It is a lesson American voters would do well to keep in mind as November approaches.

Read it here.