News portal

I had some fun yesterday, kicking over the anthill that is the Obama cult, and my, how the little critters are still furious about it. This is one reason I can’t be a Democrat; the people in that party appear for the most part to be driven only by emotion. Sure, it makes sense to care about the issues and your candidate of choice, but there really should be rational, logical reasons for your positions. And frankly, the Left seems to hate the very idea of defending its positions with logic and evidence. Take Global Warming, for instance. I agree that we humans must be responsible for the materials we use, and to be accountable for the effect our actions have on other people and living things. But accepting radical demands simply because they are couched in the ‘we can’t wait to prove our case’ arguments of Global Warming advocates is not rational, especially when there is reason to suspect hidden agenda and ulterior motives. Global Warming is an unproven theory, to say nothing of the claims that man’s actions cause it or can stop it. The Kyoto Treaty stands out as a particularly deceitful and hypocritical example of the thinking, punishing the US while excusing, even rewarding third-world nations and places like China, whose actions are - using the logic of the Left - far more contributory to pollution and Global Warming. A reasonable person could well wonder why we should even be concerned with Carbon Dioxide, known to be beneficial to most plants and inert to humans except in levels on concentration impossible to find in Nature, especially when we could and to my mind should focus on real pollution from particulates and known carcinogens. And that is merely one of the more obvious examples.

Economics is another arena where Leftist demands run into brick walls of Reality. Take the recent hike in the minimum wage, an artificial creation of Congress which does nothing to increase the economy’s effectiveness, but is merely another mechanism for wealth redistribution. The money to pay for the increased minimum comes from the businesses which pay employees, businesses which for the most part are sole proprietorships or small partnerships, that is businesses already running on tight margins which cannot afford to have their expenses increased simply because Congress wanted to do so. So they did what they had to do, they cut positions to make ends meet and this raised the unemployment rate. This is the same logic that adding a half-dollar tax on your gas would be a good idea, but if you look on the side of the pump the next time you fill up, you will see that the government thought that was a great idea, as well. The Left does not understand Economics, and certainly never considers the law of unintended consequences.

- continued -

This brings us back to the Left’s poster boy for President; a guy whose experience is so thin that he barely got started in his first year as a Senator before he started running for President. A guy who boasted about his superior judgment, but who has had to admit that he did not really understand the character and nature of some of his closest associates. His mentor, Jeremiah Wright, has been exposed as an America-hating racist, yet Obama called this man his mentor and his closest advisor for years. Obama was a close acquaintance of Billy Ayers, even declared his candidacy from Ayer’s house, but now it turns out that Ayers was not only a member of the infamous ‘Weatherman’ terrorist group in the 1960s, he still holds the same values he did then. We find that Obama made deals with his fund-raiser Antoin Rezko, at least before Mr. Rezko got himself indicted and convicted for fraud and corruption. The list goes on much further, but you get the idea … Obama’s associates were and are as dirty as those we once saw surrounding Richard Nixon. Different party, but the same game.

So, convince me guys. What is the rational argument for electing Obama? What empirical support can you point to, that shows he can do the job and is fit for it?

Is there anything inside that expensive suit but a con man?

Yesterday on Fox News, anchor Shep Smith was recounting the story of a man in Pennsylvania who was stuck in a port-a-potty. According to the York Daily Record (PA), the man was “drunk, naked and wedged up to his waist in the hole of the toilet.” Toward the end of the segment, Smith compared people […]

In its recent “congressional insiders poll,” the National Journal questioned 39 GOP senators and congressmen about whether they believe global warming is manmade. The results:

Some of their explanations concluded, “Human contribution is minimal,” and “It’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Democrats are OK with the idea of surrendering our spot atop the […]

In February 2007, Congress held its first hearing on the landmark IPCC report on climate change. That report concluded that global warming is “unequivocal” and human activity is the main driver. During this hearing, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) questioned the scientists about a period of dramatic climate change that occurred 55 million years ago:
We don’t […]

I just finally got around to reading Michael Chrichton’s “State Of Fear,” and it was… interesting. As a novel, it’s pretty much a failure. But as a political/scientific work, it’s very compelling.

The last time I read a work of fiction that was so thoroughly researched, footnoted, and documented, it was Larry Beinart’s “American Hero.” That book — which postulated (in the guise of fiction) that the first President Bush had conspired with Saddam Hussein to arrange the first Gulf War — was a bit of a better read, but not quite as compelling as political theory.

In Chrichton’s book (I really can’t call it a “novel”), he brings his scientifically-trained mind to the environmental movement — and finds nearly every single argument of theirs lacking credibility. He does this mainly through repeated straw-man arguments, where he puts the statements and positions of most of those most concerned with global warming climate change in the mouths of well-meaning idiots, then has his proxies utterly demolish them. The repetition gets a bit tedious after about the seventeenth iteration, but even that is significant — each time he finds a new aspect, a new argument, a new position, a new bit of “evidence” that he shreds in a different way.

The essential point he made when he wrote it is the same one I’d made independently a while ago: the core principle of the climate change movement is utterly, completely, irredeemably, fatally flawed.

Yes, the earth’s climate is changing. But guess what? It’s always been changing, and always will be changing. THERE IS NO “BALANCE OF NATURE.” There is no magic equilibrium point that we are moving away from as we tilt ourselves towards extinction.

The history of the earth’s climate is one of instability, of change, of progression and regression. We have eras of warmer and colder climes. Of flood and drought.

What is the “natural” state of the earth? Here’s a way to model it. Take the state of California and toss it into a blender. (Hmm. I think I like that idea.) Put it on puree for five minutes, then take out a piece. You might get desert. Or you might get mountains. Or seashore. Or farmland. Or forests. Or verdant valleys. Or a piece of a glacier. Maybe a bit of a lake.

To declare that the earth’s climate is changing largely in response to man’s actions is the height of arrogance, and to demand that we devote so much of our energies and resources into “addressing” this concerns is the sheerest of follies. We would make King Canute standing at the shores of the ocean, commanding the tide to turn back seem humble.

The odd part is that the environmentalists, at their core, have it right. We SHOULD work to minimize our “footprint” (and not just carbon) we place on the world. We SHOULD improve our energy efficiency, across the board. We SHOULD cut down on the pollutants we inflict on the world.

But not because it will cause some global catastrophe. But because it simply is inefficient, it is wasteful, it is foolish, and it is wrong.

These things should be incremental, though. Done through manageable methods, with reasonable, achievable goals.

That’s not what we have today. Today’s “environmentalists” are, in essence, religious zealots who, in their divine fervor, decry the “heretics.” They are not that far removed from the raving Islamists who talk about “beheading those who insult Islam” — just with a bit more civil veneer.

I’m a bit late to the party, but I’d recommend anyone who’s actually interested in the environment — and not just looking to hop on the bandwagon of “concern” — to take a look at Chrichton’s book. (I still can’t call it a “novel.”) Skim over the plot, and look at the point where Chrichton actually looks at the environmentalists’ arguments, research, documents, and whatnot with a critical eye — and see how lacking it truly is. And especially look at the examples he cites where the environmentalists got their way, and put their theories into practice.

It ain’t pretty. But it’s true.

In the heat of the campaign season, pundits often forget that the American people like leadership. While there is endless debate on the fine points of each candidate’s character (and occasionally debate about the issues), in the end, I believe Americans vote for candidates who offer a compelling and cohesive vision for America. That vision must give voters a story to connect the various proposals and anecdotes that politicians use on the campaign trail.

As I touched on a couple of weeks ago, John McCain has had three months to run unopposed and so far, he hasn’t been making a convincing case to the American people that he has an overarching idea of where America should be going. I’ve been watching McCain’s campaign closely over the last few months, and the multiple and often competing “visions” he has been laying out don’t coalesce into anything that makes sense.

McCain’s original pitch to the American people after locking up the nomination was that he would be a “different kind of Republican,” willing to reach out to those who don’t often vote Republican and get their views. McCain then embarked on a tour of “forgotten places,” mostly in Democratic strongholds in the South like New Orleans.

There, while holding a myriad of town hall meetings, he continued to support policies created by George Bush that hurt the very people he was supposed to be “reaching out to.” John McCain was going on tour and listening, but there was no action behind his words. His straight talk was cold comfort to those in New Orleans still without housing or employment, or those in the rural South hurting from free trade agreements.

While ostensibly reaching out to people in “forgotten places,” McCain was also trying to solidify the Republican base. His speech on Supreme Court judges, in particular, was a dangerous bit of pandering. Many on the left and in the media missed the significance of that speech and the cases McCain referenced, but Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker caught it:

The giveaway here was that McCain did not reveal the subject matter of this supposed judicial outrage. The case was Roper v. Simmons, in which a seventeen-year-old boy murdered a woman after breaking into her home, and was sentenced to death. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s opinion overturned the sentence and held that the Constitution forbids the death penalty for juvenile offenders. McCain’s reference to the Court’s “discourse” on the law of “other nations” refers to Kennedy’s observation of the “stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty.” Likewise, Kennedy noted that the only other countries to execute juvenile offenders since 1990 have been China, Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. According to McCain, the United States apparently belongs on this dismal list.

Nor were his references to penumbras and emanations accidental. Those words come from Justice William O. Douglas’s 1965 opinion for the Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Justices recognized for the first time a constitutional right to privacy, and ruled that a state could not deny married couples access to birth control. The “meaning of life” was a specific reference, too. It comes from the Court’s 1992 opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed the central holding of Roe v. Wade, and forbade the states from banning abortion. In short, this one passage in McCain’s speech amounted to a dog whistle for the right–an implicit promise that he will appoint Justices who will eliminate the right to privacy, permit states to ban abortion, and allow the execution of teen-agers.

A speech slyly promoting the death penalty for teenagers and raging against birth control and abortion cuts against McCain’s message as a “different kind of Republican.”

Finally, on Tuesday, with the Democratic nomination all but over, John McCain sought to re-brand himself again. This time, he declared that he represented the “right kind of change” in front of a hideous green backdrop. In his speech, McCain argued that Obama represented a return to 70s and 80s style liberalism, his policies were different from Bush, and he has the experience necessary to bring about the “right kind of change.”

It should be pretty clear to most people here that none of these arguments are going to work. Once again, Jeffrey Toobin had it right, proclaiming on CNN, “That was pathetic!”

First, does anyone really believe, after listening to Barack Obama, that he is looking backwards in his policies? Obama has been able to convince huge swaths of America that he is looking beyond the partisan battles of our past towards a new, hopeful future. There is nothing in the language that he uses or the way he presents himself that smacks of old, Carter-era politics. It’s hard for me to imagine that line of attack sticking.

Next, while McCain believes his policy positions are original, I’ve yet to uncover a single major plan that breaks from Bush’s course in any way.  (I used to be able to point to global warming, but given his recent statement that he’s against Lieberman-Warner, I can’t even say that anymore.) Put that together with McCain’s voting record - 100% with Bush this year and 95% with Bush last year - and you begin to perceive the truth. McCain’s presidency would represent four more years of Bush.

Lastly, John McCain seems to want to fight the experience vs. change battle again. With all due respect towards Hillary Clinton, that battle has already been fought. Change won. If McCain wants to have that discussion again, be my guest. I don’t think it’s going to work out any differently this time around.

Of course, McCain’s schizophrenic messaging can be easily contrasted with Barack Obama’s clear voice. For better or for worse, Americans know what Obama stands for - hope and change. All of Obama’s policies, anecdotes, and language fit under this rhetorical umbrella. While it’s difficult to understand why McCain doesn’t support the G.I. Bill or wants a manned mission to Mars, given his campaign theme, Obama’s focus on technology and nuclear disarmament fits right in with his hope and change message.

McCain has no coherent vision and seems to be running on his checkered Senate voting record and his war-hero persona. As Holly Bailey and Jon Meacham at Newsweek point out, he is beginning to primarily define himself by what he is not (Bush, Obama), a sure-fire losing strategy. Americans - who by and large care about their country but don’t have the inclination to understand every nuance of policy of character - tend to elect candidates with a coherent message because they feel secure that whatever a candidate’s policies are, they will fit into the message they are preaching.

There is a lot of time between now and November, but so far, Obama has a 17 month head start in getting out a clear message to America. McCain just might be playing catch-up this entire race.

(P.S. If you’re wondering what all those random links reading “McCain” are about, I’m participating in Chris Bowers’ search optimization project “Searching For McCain,” and you should too!)

J Ro’s opinions are his own and do not represent any other person or organization.

Tags: John McCain, Barack Obama, 2008 elections (all tags)

It’s been confirmed: Barack Obama really is the Obamamessiah! Confirmed by who? Well, it’s been confirmed by this dolt writing for, surprise surprise, a major U.S. newspaper, the San Francisco Gate.

Barack Obama isn’t really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway.

This is what I find myself offering up more and more in response to the whiners and the frowners and to those with broken or sadly dysfunctional karmic antennae - or no antennae at all - to all those who just don’t understand and maybe even actively recoil against all this chatter about Obama’s aura and feel and MLK/JFK-like vibe.

To them I say, all right, you want to know what it is? The appeal, the pull, the ethereal and magical thing that seems to enthrall millions of people from all over the world, that keeps opening up and firing into new channels of the culture normally completely unaffected by politics?

No, it’s not merely his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric. It is not fresh ideas or cool charisma or the fact that a black president will be historic and revolutionary in about a thousand different ways. It is something more. Even Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn’t have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity.

Dismiss it all you like, but I’ve heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who’ve been intuitively blown away by Obama’s presence - not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence - to say it’s just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist whores, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord.

Here’s where it gets gooey. Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

The unusual thing is, true Lightworkers almost never appear on such a brutal, spiritually demeaning stage as national politics. This is why Obama is so rare. And this why he is so often compared to Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., to those leaders in our culture whose stirring vibrations still resonate throughout our short history.

Are you rolling your eyes and scoffing? Fine by me. But you gotta wonder, why has, say, the JFK legacy lasted so long, is so vital to our national identity? Yes, the assassination canonized his legend. The Kennedy family is our version of royalty. But there’s something more. Those attuned to energies beyond the literal meanings of things, these people say JFK wasn’t assassinated for any typical reason you can name. It’s because he was just this kind of high-vibration being, a peacemaker, at odds with the war machine, the CIA, the dark side. And it killed him.

Reading this, I halfway wondered if this was some secret column switch made by the spies in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, published for the sole purpose of mocking how ridiculous the media’s fawning coverage of Obama’s campaign has been.

Of course, we all know that’s not true. People will actually read this and believe the insipid tripe.

Makes this video of fawning journalists seem tame, doesn’t it?

Has anyone even heard the term “Lightworker” before? I’m pretty sure that’s something this idiot and his “enlightened” buddies made up, probably when they were smoking… things. But hey, Obama is destined, he’s entitled, the Presidency is his, because he’s the Obamamessiah, and he will save our country and the world!! The birds will sing, the flowers will bloom, global warming will disappear, the economy will improve, the war in Iraq will be over, and the Middle East will stop wanting to kill us.

And hey, this guy said it loud and clear, exactly what it is that Obama’s supporters like so gosh darn much about him. Forget policies or speeches, what’s really important is that undefinable presence he has. That’s all we need. Well, that, and the fist-bump.

God save us.

From LGF on a tip from Matthew.

CLIFF: I think it’s beyond what you’d call dating.               
MIKEY: You going to get married?

CLIFF: (Shrugs) Maybe.               

MIKEY: You met her family? They gonna be cool about you being a white guy?

CLIFF: Priscilla says they think any woman over 30 who isn’t married must be a lesbian. She figures they’ll be so relieved I’m a man–               

MIKEY: Always heartwarming to see a prejudice defeated by a deeper prejudice.

- “Lone Star”, 1996

- Climate change: The solution is simple.

- “… That’s how right-wing crap works. It’s not meant to advance or even partake of discourse; it’s meant to end it. One can argue the worth of Hillary’s policies or her voting record or her position on the war till the cows come home; but when she’s reduced to being a bitch, that pretty much ends the discussion. … And it’s important to remember that the same holds true regarding right-wing attitudes about a black man like Obama winning the White House. …” (via)

- “The Meeting”

- Nero fiddled while New Orleans drowned. And yeah, we knew that, but somehow it keeps being freshly awful.

- Holden obsesses with the Gaggle.

- Did you know that things are going to hell in Turkey? Well, if you did, you’ve been following the news better than I’ve been.

- McCain on FISA.

What’s on your minds?

Tags: blog news, news roundup, open thread (all tags)